[testing22321]

You are 100% correct. It’s small fry right now.

You might be shocked to learn the first airplane couldn’t take passengers.

Things improve, or at least attempt to. Even if it fails, I’d rather live in a world where new ideas are being tried and tested and not always talking about how good my horse and cart is.

[AgentK20]

I don’t think most people are arguing against the concept, or even implementation, of the system as developed. Obviously it’s both a publicity stunt and beta test as they learn how to build and operate a tunnel system like this. The concern is that much of the environmental harm that’s being done (according to the EPA) is repetitive, and that The Boring Company (TBC) actively pledged to hire an environmental inspector three years ago and is now being fined for having not done so. Given that, who knows how many violations that don’t leave a permanent mark are going unnoticed.

Do you think that they are going to ignore environmental laws for JUST this project, or do you think that is their modus operandi? I’d be happy to have a tunnel system installed near my home, even if there’s temporary disruption during the construction process. What I wouldn’t tolerate is active, and unmonitored (by TBC’s insistence on “self-monitoring”), pollution occurring near my home. Fines only cover so much, and un-polluting something after the fact costs far more than the fines that are being levied and, when it comes to pollutants that harm humans (like improper disposal of chemicals from digging, as they have been fined for), you can’t just “undo” the human harm with a fine.

[terminalshort]

What I think is that environmental review rules are so convoluted that almost any project you would investigate breaks plenty of them. I also don't trust the definition of "environmental" when it comes to environmental regulations. When you hear "environmental" you think dumping toxic chemicals, but in reality environmental reviews have components like a building casting a shadow on a playground for 1 hour a day. And on top of that I don't trust journalists for counts of number of violations. In this case they get to 800 by counting one real violation 700 times:

> The letter also accuses the company of failing to hire an independent environmental manager to regularly inspect its construction sites. State regulators counted 689 missed inspections.

[1718627440]

> as they learn how to build and operate a tunnel system like this.

Yes, why do they even do that. Not that they are never any improvements, but this pretty much a solved problem. They have a stupid amount of NIH syndrome, but apply that to the physical world and that always results in fatalities.

[Veserv]

I would rather live in a world where you do not get to cause hundreds of times more environmental violations than others just because you imagine your new horse and cart idea is way better than cars.

You can, in fact, not discharge your sewage and contaminated water into public spaces even if you are trying something new. What a concept.

[testing22321]

At no point did I suggest anything like that.

Clearly they broke the law, and will be punished for it as the law demands. Good.

[rainsford]

But it's not really a new idea. Vehicles transporting people through tunnels is something we already know how to do and we have many examples going back decades that are more efficient and higher volume.

This isn't some new early stage innovation that can grow into a great new thing, it's a shittier version of something we already have.

[mschuster91]

There's that, but attempting to run around regulations despite numerous violations just doesn't fly either.

[testing22321]

And they will be punished for it, exactly as defined by the law.

[mschuster91]

A fine that isn't based on income isn't a fine, it's a cost of doing business at the expense of workers, the environment and society at large. 242k, that's peanuts for someone with Musk level wealth.

[testing22321]

So you’re angry that fines are not based on income?

What are you doing to fix that?