>I think the primary innovation is business plan, ie limit scope by only bidding on things like small diameter, simple requirements, etc. Avoid projects that would lengthy and expensive study, etc. Public works projects tend to be insanely expensive and part of it is due to continual scope creep, which brings in more stakeholders which further increases scope and cost… in a continuous cycle until the project is canceled or, miraculously, is finished at ten times the budget.
Is there any documentation that this is the motivation? Why as detailed in the article does he then entice local governments by saying he can do it at an insanely low price and then never puts a bit in? Also in the article Musk said he could build the tunnel for $45M, but after the discussions with the city the price rose to $500M, so much for keeping costs in check.
>Which kind of answers the objections raised in these articles. If cities are unwilling or unable to allow scope to be constrained to the capabilities of TBC’s tunneling tech, why should TBC bid on the project? Why blame TBC for that?
Again where is the evidence, for that claim? He got the local government to cancel the light rail project because he said he could build it for more than a factor 20-30 less, after discussions that became a factor 2-3 and then they didn't even bid?
> But we’ll see. TBC has not completed many tunneling projects, and companies must ultimately be judged on the basis of their output (although for companies in growth and innovation mode, that can require patience).
Not many is quite an understatement. 2 is the actual number, one on the SpaceX property under some road (they actually cancelled a second planed one) and the Las Vegas one, which is probably the easiest case for tunnel boring.
Is there any documentation that this is the motivation? Why as detailed in the article does he then entice local governments by saying he can do it at an insanely low price and then never puts a bit in? Also in the article Musk said he could build the tunnel for $45M, but after the discussions with the city the price rose to $500M, so much for keeping costs in check.
>Which kind of answers the objections raised in these articles. If cities are unwilling or unable to allow scope to be constrained to the capabilities of TBC’s tunneling tech, why should TBC bid on the project? Why blame TBC for that?
Again where is the evidence, for that claim? He got the local government to cancel the light rail project because he said he could build it for more than a factor 20-30 less, after discussions that became a factor 2-3 and then they didn't even bid?
> But we’ll see. TBC has not completed many tunneling projects, and companies must ultimately be judged on the basis of their output (although for companies in growth and innovation mode, that can require patience).
Not many is quite an understatement. 2 is the actual number, one on the SpaceX property under some road (they actually cancelled a second planed one) and the Las Vegas one, which is probably the easiest case for tunnel boring.