News
Why The Boring Company’s $10 million dollars per mile price tag is a game changer
With The Boring Company, Elon Musk hopes to overcome the pitfalls that drive up the costs of underground rail transport construction using good old-fashioned innovation with a dash of Silicon Valley startup dust (dirt?). Currently, most U.S. local and state governments (i.e., tax payers) hand over an average of $200-$500 million dollars per mile to construct a subway system, with hundreds of millions more per mile a common occurrence and even a $1 billion dollars per mile price tag having happened a few times already. The reasons for such expense seems to be multi-faceted and stubborn: regulations, unions, and project management. So, when the Tesla CEO and Boring Company founder cited $10 million dollars as the final price of their mile-long demonstration tunnel, including internal infrastructure, lighting, comms/video, safety systems, ventilation, and tracks, he seemed to be threatening to completely upend yet another industry, this one having been at the core of transportation for nearly 200 years.
“I like trains, by the way. I really like trains a lot,” Musk assured his press audience at the company’s recent demonstration tunnel opening event. The Boring Company (TBC) began as a Twitter discussion wherein the tech mogul was venting about “soul-destroying” traffic in Los Angeles. A concept animation followed soon after (as well as hats and not-a-flamethrowers), imagining a transportation system where cars would be shuttled around at high speeds underground on electric skates. Ideas flowed, tunneling began, and the result of all those efforts went on display December 18, 2018, demo rides included. A rideable 1.14 mile tunnel had been constructed from Crenshaw Boulevard across from the Hawthorne, California headquarters of SpaceX, Musk’s private rocket company, to the 120th Street/Prairie Avenue crossroad of Hawthorne.
Around this time last year, Brian Rosenthal of the New York Times exposed several astonishing factors that added up to a $3.5 billion dollars per mile cost to construct a 3.5 mile tunnel to connect Grand Central Terminal to the Long Island Rail Road in New York City, aka the “East Side Access”. An infamous “first”, this price tag is 7 times more than the average of anywhere else in the world. A combination of trade union, construction company, and consulting firm practices, including significant staff redundancy, bred an environment ripe for cost pile-ups, and both incompetence and the lack of oversight within New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) added significantly to the issue. While the specific amount of money spent made the system’s cost unique in the world, the general underlying issues were not uncommon.
New York may be an exception to the already high-cost of rail construction rule, but there’s the rub: It’s already incredibly expensive. As documented in numerous articles by Alon Levy, an independent journalist whose 2011 blog post on the topic inspired the research that eventually led to the Times piece, $100-$500 million dollars per mile is a typical cost for building railed transporation worldwide. “These are crazy numbers,” Musk exclaimed at the tunnel opening event after summarizing the multiple billions of dollars short tunneling projects cost to complete in L.A. and New York. If the building cost wasn’t enough sticker shock, it gets worse: The daily operating costs of rail systems in the U.S. exceed the amount earned.
Another metric that is used to estimate the true cost of rail construction is cost per rider. After the time and money is spent building a public rail system, it needs to be staffed and repaired, expenses which are difficult to match with revenue without a large number of riders. As cited by Alon Levy in an article Elon Musk tweeted recently, New York’s Second Avenue Subway will cost $25,000 per rider to complete 200,000 trips per day. In Los Angeles, the Purple Line will cost $45,000 per rider for 150,000 trips per day as will Boston’s Green Line Extension for 52,000 trips. Looking at rider fares, New York loses a bit less than $1 per ride taken and L.A. loses over $2 per ride.
So, how will The Boring Company “do” underground transportation system building better than the traditional, money-heavy methods? To put it simply: Be efficient.
Building a better mouse snail trap
They’ve designed their tunneling machines to bore faster and more efficiently. While the first generation machine is conventional and named Godot after the Samuel Backett play, Waiting for Godot due to the length of time it took to understand the machine’s functionality and assemble it, two other improved generations will be part of the Boring family.
The second generation machine, named “Line-Storm” after a Robert Frost love poem with the same phrase in its title that’s about overcoming hardships, is a conventional boring machine that has been highly modified. It uses a redesigned cutting head that takes in significantly more dirt and is 2 times faster than Godot.
The third generation machine, named “Prufrock”, will be a ground-up, fully designed TBC machine that’s 15 times better than the next best boring system, and that means 15 times faster than the next best machine out there, period.
Improved construction practices and project management
During construction, TBC reinforced tunnel segments as they were dug, those reinforcements being created on-site out of materials comprising 70% of the dirt dug and the remaining 30% primarily cement. This recycled material, as-you-go system enabled quick construction with cost efficiency, the demo tunnel taking 2 years almost to the day from Musk’s initial Tweet that inspired the undertaking.
Function-focused engineering
TBC’s tunnels are smaller than the typical underground rail system because they’re designed for specific types of vehicles that are smaller than traditional transports (autonomous electrics) and don’t require extra space for maintenance. This in itself reduces costs by 3-4 times.
Although The Boring Company has the advantage of being the new kid on the block whose founder has a unique background in shaking up traditional systems, there may still be a few hangups that will never quite go away. Anything involving the general public, especially public transit, will have serious bureaucracy involved. To achieve the company’s mile-long demo track feat, it had to face the extreme regulatory environment of Los Angeles. California overall has earthquakes, is a methane zone, and has oil and gas fields, all which add to a long list of rules to be followed for any construction projects to commence. “The amount of paperwork we had to go through to do this was enormous,” Musk said at TBC’s recent event.
Additionally, a lawsuit filed last year by the Brentwood Residents Coalition and the Sunset Coalition objecting to the company’s Sepulveda tunnel eventually led to their abandonment of that leg of the demonstration project. The coalitions primarily alleged that TBC was skirting environmental review requirements by “chopping large projects into smaller pieces that taken individually appear to have no significant environmental impacts”, citing a conceptual map the company released showing its planned Los Angeles tunnel system. Musk hasn’t let these hurdles damage his confidence, however. While speaking with press at TBC’s opening event, he added his own spin to the Broadway mantra (and Frank Sinatra hit, “New York, New York”) about “making it” there : “If you can build a tunnel in L.A., you can build it anywhere.”
As CEO of an innovative electric car company and a commercial rocket company set on sending humans to Mars, Musk is known as an industry disruptor. Even if the cost of boring tunnels for public transportation projects rises somewhat above the $10 million per mile price demonstrated with the LA/Hawthorne tunnel, it will be still be well under the typical costs in the boring industry. It’s obvious already that a potential disruption is underway. “We have people hounding us to invest nonstop…it’s kinda ridiculous how much interest we’ve had in investing in Boring Company,” Musk stated at the tunnel unveiling. Steve Davis, president of the company, added that they receive “greater than 5 and less than 20 requests per week from different municipalities and stakeholders.”
Also in the works for the tunneling newcomers: A transport line connecting downtown Chicago to Chicago O’Hare International Airport. The company won a contract to build a transport system for the city’s fliers in June 2017, and ground breaking is planned for sometime in the next few months. The Boring Company’s calendar still includes plans for an “urban loop system” as well, an underground network of pod-type buses for pedestrians and cyclists connecting numerous points throughout city centers.
SpaceX confirmed today that it has officially signed its third massive compute deal, providing compute at its Colossus data center in Southaven, Tennessee.
Reflection AI will gain immediate access to NVIDIA GB300 chips at SpaceX’s Colossus 2 data center. In return, Reflection will pay SpaceX $150 million per month starting on July 1, with total payments reaching approximately $6.3 billion if the contract runs through its duration, which is until 2029. Either party can terminate the agreement with 90 days’ notice after the initial three-month period.
CNBC first reported the deal.
🚨 SpaceXAI has agreed to a new compute deal with Reflection AI.
Reflection gets access to NIVIDIA GB300s, and will pay $150M per month to SpaceXAI for the compute. pic.twitter.com/bNPare8U5u
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 22, 2026
This latest partnership highlights SpaceX’s strategy of commercializing its massive Colossus supercomputing infrastructure, originally developed to power Elon Musk’s Grok AI models. The company has rapidly expanded its customer base in the AI sector following its February 2026 merger with xAI, a transaction that valued the combined entity at $1.25 trillion.
SpaceX has previously signed significant compute deals with other major players.
It granted Anthropic exclusive access to the full capacity of its Colossus 1 data center, which exceeds 300 megawatts and includes over 220,000 NVIDIA GPUs. Details from SpaceX’s IPO filings indicate Anthropic will pay $1.25 billion per month through May 2029, potentially generating around $45 billion over the term of the deal.
Additionally, Google agreed to pay SpaceX $920 million per month for compute capacity from October 2026 through June 2029. This 32-month period will provide Google access to roughly 110,000 NVIDIA GPUs, along with supporting processors and memory. Capacity ramps up through September at a reduced fee, with termination options after the first year.
SpaceXA also established arrangements for computing power with Cursor, an AI coding startup. SpaceX acquired them in a $60 billion all-stock deal.
These arrangements position SpaceX’s collective position as an AI infrastructure powerhouse with high-margin revenue potential. The Google deal alone could generate nearly $29.5 billion over its term, while the Reflection contract adds another $6.3 billion.
Combined with the Anthropic arrangement, SpaceX stands to realize tens of billions in revenue from compute leasing in the coming years, which diversifies beyond SpaceX’s traditional rocket launches and Starlink operation.
The deals underscore growing demand for advanced AI training and inference capacity amid chip shortages and surging model development needs. Reflection, valued at $25 billion and focused on “American open intelligence” with government and national security ties, cited recent restrictions on closed models as validation for open-source approaches.
For SpaceX, the partnerships transform capital-intensive data centers into flexible revenue sources while supporting its broader AI ambitions after the company has gone public.
It is safe to say SpaceX won’t be going for electric rockets anytime soon.
In a characteristically blunt reply on X, SpaceX frontman Elon Musk stated, “Unfortunately, electric rockets are impossible,” following reports that MSCI had assigned SpaceX its lowest possible ESG rating of CCC.
The assessment, issued just this past week, coinciding closely with SpaceX’s public market debut, placed the company on par with nations like Russia in sustainability scoring and cited significant risks in environmental, social, and governance areas.
MSCI flagged SpaceX’s exposure to rocket emissions and other operational impacts, alongside governance concerns such as concentrated control by Musk and limited shareholder protections. Musk’s terse comment directly addressed the environmental pillar, underscoring a core physical constraint that ESG frameworks often overlook when evaluating high-thrust industries.
Unfortunately, electric rockets are impossible
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 21, 2026
Electric propulsion systems do exist and are widely used in space. Ion thrusters and Hall-effect thrusters accelerate ionized propellant, typically xenon or krypton, using electric fields, achieving very high specific impulse, often exceeding 3,000 seconds compared to roughly 300–450 seconds for chemical rockets.
This efficiency makes them ideal for satellite station-keeping, orbit raising, and deep-space missions where low thrust over long durations is sufficient. SpaceX’s own Starlink satellites employ electric propulsion for these purposes.
However, launching from Earth’s surface demands something entirely different: enormous thrust delivered rapidly to overcome gravity and atmospheric drag. A typical orbital-class booster must generate thrust far exceeding its weight, often in the millions of Newtons within seconds.
Chemical rockets achieve this through exothermic combustion of dense propellants, producing high-mass-flow, high-velocity exhaust. Electric systems, by contrast, expel very small amounts of mass at extremely high speeds. Generating equivalent thrust would require impractical onboard power levels, massive energy storage or generation systems, and prohibitive added mass, rendering the approach infeasible with current or near-term technology.
Musk has previously expressed a similar sentiment, noting a desire for electric orbital rockets while acknowledging the inescapable requirements of Newton’s third law and energy delivery. The distinction is clear: electric propulsion excels once a vehicle is already in space; it cannot replace the high-thrust chemical phase required to reach orbit from the ground.
The episode illustrates broader critiques of ESG ratings. Proponents argue they incentivize better risk management and long-term sustainability. Detractors, including Musk—who has previously called ESG a “scam”—contend that such metrics can penalize essential activities when no practical alternative exists, potentially discouraging innovation in sectors like space access.
Elon Musk dubs the S&P 500 ESG as “outrageous scam” after Tesla gets booted from index
SpaceX has sought to mitigate launch-related impacts through reusability: Falcon 9 boosters have flown more than 30 times in some cases, dramatically lowering the manufacturing and emissions burden per kilogram delivered to orbit. Starship’s design further emphasizes rapid reusability and methane propellant, which can theoretically be produced via sustainable pathways.
Ultimately, Musk’s remark serves as a reminder that certain engineering realities persist regardless of scoring systems. As humanity expands its presence in space for communications, science, and exploration, balancing genuine environmental progress with technological necessity remains a central challenge.
ESG frameworks may evolve, but the fundamental limits of electric launch propulsion are unlikely to change soon.
Tesla just trademarked ‘MEGAPOD’ with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), its latest move in what seems to be a hint that the company is incredibly focused on its AI efforts and storage needs as compute increases.
The application carries serial number 99893717 and lists the applicant as Tesla, Inc., located at 1 Tesla Road, Austin, Texas 78725.
The filing remains in ‘live pending’ status, and it is a new application waiting for assignment to an examining attorney. It has not yet been published or registered.
Tesla just trademarked MEGAPOD
Summary:
“Modular data center hardware systems for artificial intelligence computing, comprised of computer servers, computer hardware for artificial intelligence processing, computer networking hardware, electrical power distribution units, and… pic.twitter.com/3l85DsKadl— Robin (@xdNiBoR) June 19, 2026
According to the official goods and services description in the application, Tesla describes ‘MEGAPOD’ as:
“Modular data center hardware systems for artificial intelligence computing, comprised of computer servers, computer hardware for artificial intelligence processing, computer networking hardware, electrical power distribution units, and cooling systems, sold as a unit; self-contained modular computing hardware systems for artificial intelligence workloads; integrated computer hardware platforms for artificial intelligence computing, namely, enclosures containing computer hardware, power distribution hardware, and cooling hardware, sold as a unit; downloadable software for monitoring, managing, optimizing, and regulating modular artificial intelligence computing hardware systems.”
This description specifies complete, self-contained modular units that integrate servers and specialized AI processing hardware with networking components, power distribution, and cooling systems. It also includes associated downloadable software for oversight and optimization of these systems. The language emphasizes hardware sold “as a unit” and enclosures that combine the necessary elements for AI computing workloads.
Tesla has an established history of developing and commercializing modular hardware systems. Its Megapack product line, for example, consists of utility-scale battery energy storage systems designed as containerized units for grid applications. The MEGAPOD filing follows a similar pattern of protecting a name for modular, integrated hardware platforms, this time focused on artificial intelligence computing infrastructure.
This could be an early move, especially as Tesla did not have trademark rights to the word ‘Cybercab,’ the name of its self-driving, ride-hailing-focused vehicle.
Trademark applications of this type allow companies to secure priority rights to a name for defined categories of goods and services. The USPTO examines applications for compliance with legal requirements, including distinctiveness and absence of conflicts with prior marks. If the application proceeds successfully through examination, publication, and any opposition period, it could result in a federal trademark registration providing nationwide protection. This is what Tesla’s obvious intention is with ‘MEGAPOD.’
Public reports and analysis suggest MEGAPOD could represent modular, container-style AI computing pods designed for easy deployment. These would bundle servers, AI accelerators, power systems, and cooling into self-contained units suitable for distributed AI workloads. This approach aligns with Tesla’s announced AI compute strategy.
In March 2026, Elon Musk outlined plans for “Digital Optimus” (also referred to as Macrohard), a joint Tesla-xAI project for AI agents capable of handling complex digital tasks. The plans include running these agents on Tesla’s AI4 hardware in parked vehicles as well as dedicated compute units installed at Supercharger stations, which collectively offer substantial unused electrical capacity.
What is Digital Optimus? The new Tesla and xAI project explained
A modular hardware platform like the one described in the ‘MEGAPOD’ filing would support scalable, rapid deployment of such distributed compute resources. It could complement Tesla’s other AI infrastructure efforts, including the Dojo supercomputer used for training models and the development of AI systems for autonomous driving and robotics, by enabling edge or regional AI inference without reliance on traditional centralized data centers.
SpaceX confirms third massive compute deal at Colossus data center
Elon Musk responds to SpaceX’s ESG rating and says its rockets won’t go electric
