Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Musk scraps second test tunnel plan

Musk TBM 3x2

Elon Musk’s tunnel firm has dropped plans to build a second test tunnel in California, with the engineering billionaire saying it is now moving forward with a larger tunnel network under Los Angeles.

Musk’s firm, called The Boring Company, had planned to bore a second test tunnel under Sepulveda Boulevard. The plans came under fire from residents groups, who were seeking an environmental impact review.

The Boring Company has now said that it has reached an “amicable settlement” with the groups and the plans are being dropped, via a statement released to NBC News.

In a Tweet in response to the NBC News report, Musk added: “Based on what we’ve learned from the Hawthorne test tunnel, we’re moving forward with a much larger tunnel network under LA. Won’t need a second test tunnel under Sepulveda.”

musk tweet

Musk Tweet

The Boring Company’s currently has two other tunnels in the pipeline in Los Angeles. The first one called the Dugout Loop, which will go to the Dodger Stadium from East Hollywood. The second is a test tunnel in Hawthorne, which is set to open by the end of the year.

Starting from the Los Feliz area of East Hollywood, or Rampart Village neighbourhoods, the Dugout Loop is a 5.7km single track, underground tunnel, with a journey time of less than four minutes. It would sit around 9m and 13.5m underground and run at up to 240km per hour.

Like what you’ve read? To receive New Civil Engineer’s daily and weekly newsletters click here.


Readers' comments (2)

  • Philip Alexander

    I look forward to the safety case. This truly is a hare-brained idea and I'm surprised it's being taken seriously by anyone, most of all, members of the ICE.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I agree with Philip ^

    It may be technically feasible, but it doesn't look economically sustainable and also quite impractical.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Please note comments made online may also be published in the print edition of New Civil Engineer. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.