Boring Company's LA Tunnel Blocked by Community

AlphaAtlas

[H]ard|Gawd
Staff member
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
1,713
Reuters reports that one of the Boring Company's LA Tunnel has been blocked following accusations of "Musk of trying to evade a lengthy environmental review required for such projects." While the 2.7 mile tunnel under LA's west side was canceled, the Boring Company is still going ahead with a shorter tunnel between Dodger Stadium and the city's metro line. As we previously reported, the tunnel is still scheduled to open on December 10, and passengers will be offered free rides on the the 11th.

"Based on what we've learned from the Hawthorne test tunnel, we're moving forward with a much larger tunnel network under LA," Musk tweeted on Wednesday, adding, "Won't need a second test tunnel under Sepulveda." Boring said the Hawthorne tunnel and its Dugout Loop would serve as proof-of-concept sites for a traffic-easing system of subterranean tubes that will move pedestrian vehicles called "skates” from place to place at up to 150 miles per hour (240 km per hour). The Dodger Stadium tunnel will initially be limited to some 1,400 passengers per event, about 2.5 percent of the ballpark’s capacity, but ridership could eventually be doubled, Boring’s website said. It said fares would run just $1 a ride.
 
Don't they realize their own transport department had already proposed bew tunnels years ago.
Soon is just using existing plans, his crew, hit own boring machine and installing his hyperloop equipment.

Sometimes people can constantly be unaware.
 
The difference is that the boring company is proving they can do it for orders of magnitude cheaper. Proposing tunnels is not the same as finding cheaper ways to do the same tunnels.

Don't they realize their own transport department had already proposed bew tunnels years ago.
Soon is just using existing plans, his crew, hit own boring machine and installing his hyperloop equipment.

Sometimes people can constantly be unaware.
 
So there's probably some local species of worms that don't live anywhere else in the LA basin?
 
And none of that runoff flows into the ocean, affecting beaches, fish, ocean life that people eat of course?

Tunneling possibly affects groundwater, from 400 miles away, and water possibly flows to the ocean, therefore we shouldn't tunnel? Really confused by this stretch of a stretch. I think you are just guessing- you didn't research anything on California water cycle before this comment, just "humans = bad". The drinking water would be affected and a problem far before it affects the socal coast.
 
Environmental review. Just in case they kill all the adorable deer and bunnies that live inside the dirt 50 feet below the surface
I'm all for environmental reviews, but yeah this seems a bit off. Probably worried about all the people that will start using the new subway...but I'd think that will have a positive effect reducing cars (and I haven't been is SOCal since the 60's but I can't imagine traffic has improved much since then ;) ). I have a hard time imagining there is any usable groundwater in that area and probably hasn't been for near a hundred years.
 
I am curious what that has to do with drilling or digging, I see no mention of it in that article. That article is mainly talking about lead from older buildings and pipes, not anything new.
Yes, it's a separate issue with different causes, my point was contamination of water has become a low priority in America.

Tunneling possibly affects groundwater, from 400 miles away, and water possibly flows to the ocean, therefore we shouldn't tunnel? Really confused by this stretch of a stretch. I think you are just guessing- you didn't research anything on California water cycle before this comment, just "humans = bad". The drinking water would be affected and a problem far before it affects the socal coast.
No, my point was it shouldn't SKIP ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. Your comment was implying that even REVIEWING it for environmental impact was silly. If a regulator says the impact is minimal, then by all means, tunnel away. If he says it's going to make people sick or destroy an important aspect of the ecosystem, then yeah, slow it down and figure out a better way of doing things. You're right in that I assumed that skipping an environmental review isn't good. Why the fuck would EVADING THE REVIEW be a good thing for anyone involved?
 
Yes, it's a separate issue with different causes, my point was contamination of water has become a low priority in America.

So explain how that relates to digging a tunnel 50 feet below the surface? How are you affecting ground water and run-off from 50 feet below?
 
So explain how that relates to digging a tunnel 50 feet below the surface? How are you affecting ground water and run-off from 50 feet below?
When you dig a giant tunnel, the rock and soil removal along with any chemicals used in construction brings a lot of material to the surface, plus the change in the terrain changes water flow patterns in the future. The next time it rains, that runoff goes somewhere. What's going where and where it's likely to end up is exactly the purview of an environmental inspector. Maybe what's running off is harmless, maybe it doesn't end up in the groundwater or ocean, or maybe it kills things. Nobody knows unless they do an analysis of it. Trying to evade that analysis altogether is stupid is my point.
 
When you dig a giant tunnel, the rock and soil removal along with any chemicals used in construction brings a lot of material to the surface, plus the change in the terrain changes water flow patterns in the future. The next time it rains, that runoff goes somewhere. What's going where and where it's likely to end up is exactly the purview of an environmental inspector. Maybe what's running off is harmless, maybe it doesn't end up in the groundwater or ocean, or maybe it kills things. Nobody knows unless they do an analysis of it. Trying to evade that analysis altogether is stupid is my point.

That affects the area where the dig originated, not the tunnel itself. As for changing the water flow pattern, with it being 50 feet below the surface, that doesn't affect it as much. It is mostly impervious top ground that affects water flow and absorption. Tunnels happen to be much better than building roads/bridges, etc. Far less environmental effects from a tunnel.

I am not saying that there is no effect, or that it shouldn't be tested, but to put a clickbait article about lead poisoning from paint and old construction has absolutely nothing to do with the tunnel.
 
When you dig a giant tunnel, the rock and soil removal along with any chemicals used in construction brings a lot of material to the surface, plus the change in the terrain changes water flow patterns in the future. The next time it rains, that runoff goes somewhere. What's going where and where it's likely to end up is exactly the purview of an environmental inspector. Maybe what's running off is harmless, maybe it doesn't end up in the groundwater or ocean, or maybe it kills things. Nobody knows unless they do an analysis of it. Trying to evade that analysis altogether is stupid is my point.


Nothing at all unreasonable. And I don't think anyone here thinks we should either stick our heads in the sand nor be hyper sensitive. At the same time, the relative impact must also be considered. What is the environmental impact if the mass transport and the reduction in other means of transport? Will this system avoid X amount of airborne pollutants from exhaust, dead tires of rubber in landfills, on and on.

Everything is a trade off and the entire picture must be considered including what happens in 80 years when the tunnels are no longer being used.

Hey, I know what we could use those tunnels for;

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQPlkLkl1o0N49O8i5t5UVtBNM_p-fpoHZCVwfU-grtLAfeoX4TBQ.jpg
 
That affects the area where the dig originated, not the tunnel itself. As for changing the water flow pattern, with it being 50 feet below the surface, that doesn't affect it as much. It is mostly impervious top ground that affects water flow and absorption. Tunnels happen to be much better than building roads/bridges, etc. Far less environmental effects from a tunnel.

I am not saying that there is no effect, or that it shouldn't be tested, but to put a clickbait article about lead poisoning from paint and old construction has absolutely nothing to do with the tunnel.
Well first, yes, it's less impactful, but second, all the material REMOVED from the tunnel goes somewhere, where it goes would naturally be part of the inspection process.

And that's not just some vlickbait article if you read it btw. We seriously are having a crisis with drinking water across the country, it's just one of the most under reported stories out there. In any event, I even SAID as much it's a separate issue, maybe my analogy was a bit much of a jump, so I'll state it more clearly: The person I was responding to was implying that environmental review was ridiculous, even if it could affect the water. I was trying to illustrate that view is certainly a common one in America as we already have many sources of already contaminated water, so not wanting to investigate if this one could cause water contamination is certainly a common view in any event.

While yes, as you keep pointing out and I already acknowledged earlier, pipe contamination is completely different from tunnel digging, it's ALSO the result of not giving a shit about regulations, hence the same sentiment being expressed for the tunnel here.
 
Well first, yes, it's less impactful, but second, all the material REMOVED from the tunnel goes somewhere, where it goes would naturally be part of the inspection process.

And that's not just some vlickbait article if you read it btw.

I read the entire article. It is a clickbait article when the article really has nothing to do with the tunnel situation. You set it up as being a source for tunnel contaminants getting into the groundwater, which was not at all supported by the article. IE, you are elicited clicks on an article, that has no impact and adds nothing to the tunnel conversation, therefore its "click" "bait".
 
Reuters reports that one of the Boring Company's LA Tunnel has been blocked following accusations of "Musk of trying to evade a lengthy environmental review required for such projects." While the 2.7 mile tunnel under LA's west side was canceled


the environmental review issue was a ruse. the real reason it was opposed was because the tunnel was to go under a very wealthy area, and they were worried about their property values being affected. THAT was the reason it was canceled.

EDIT: if i can find the news articles about it later i will post
 
the environmental review issue was a ruse. the real reason it was opposed was because the tunnel was to go under a very wealthy area, and they were worried about their property values being affected. THAT was the reason it was canceled.

EDIT: if i can find the news articles about it later i will post

I believe this is what you are referring to.
 
Meanwhile Jerry Brown approved a 32 foot diameter tunnel to siphon water from the Sacramento river to the LA area. Where are the environmental reviews on that tunnel?
 
Free rides for the first... beta testers?

Here's a vacuum tube for you to sit in. Nope, never been done before but we assure it's unsinkable.
 
Meanwhile Jerry Brown approved a 32 foot diameter tunnel to siphon water from the Sacramento river to the LA area. Where are the environmental reviews on that tunnel?
Coming real soon now. Unless, of course, they were already done as SoCal has wanted to steal our water like this for many years.
 
They shorten it.


From the city documents, the tunnel starts at 12220 Crenshaw Blvd. It originally was supposed to exit at the intersection of 120th Street and Hawthorne Blvd but has now been shorten to 4012 120th Street with an "car elevator" at 3834 119th Place which is about 6000-6100 feet.

http://hawthorne-ca.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=551&meta_id=36052

Uhh, that looks like an amendment to add the elevator/spur section to a residential area that The Boring Company bought. It is not where the end of the tunnel is. I mean it's like you didn't even read your own research.


17.100.020 Definitions.
For the purposes of this Chapter, the following terms are defined:

“Test Elevator/Spur” means all components of a private underground shaft (spur) that connects from the Test Tunnel to an elevator shaft that provides access to the surface into the enclosed garage of a private residence for the purpose of further examining the capabilities of a zero-emission, underground travel option for personal vehicles.

“Test Tunnel” means the approved tunnel that extends from the property located at 12200 Crenshaw Boulevard (portion of parcel 4056-031-007), under 120th Street, to the intersection of 120th Street and Hawthorne Boulevard for the purposes of testing a zeroemission, underground travel option for personal vehicles.
 
Uhh, that looks like an amendment to add the elevator/spur section to a residential area that The Boring Company bought. It is not where the end of the tunnel is. I mean it's like you didn't even read your own research.
The tunnel being shorter is in Attachment 4.B:

TBC proposes to modify current construction of the Test Tunnel at Prairie Avenue and construct a short lateral shaft from the Test Tunnel to an exit shaft in a property located at 4012 120th Street for purposes of extracting the boring machine that is currently boring the Test Tunnel (Exit Tunnel).

The TBM was already extracted six blocks to the east of Hawthorne Boulevard and the original tunnel exit.
 
Back
Top