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.
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
