Boring Company fined nearly $500K after it dumped drilling fluids into manholes

Perceived value of The Boring Company and its tech

• Several commenters see the Boring Company as underwhelming: the Las Vegas Loop is slow to expand, low-capacity, and not technologically impressive, especially given it still relies on human drivers.
• Others argue its differentiator is lower capital cost: smaller-diameter tunnels, minimal internal infrastructure, and avoiding rails, power systems, and trains allowed it to underbid traditional people-movers by ~4x, albeit with lower capacity.
• Skeptics counter that operating costs and real-world performance aren’t transparent and that many claimed innovations (e.g., faster TBMs) haven’t visibly materialized.
• Some note the broader industry trend is towards larger single tunnels (cheaper overall once surface disruption and stations are included), contrary to Boring’s many-small-tunnels vision.

Transit politics and possible ulterior motives

• A common view is that Boring/Hyperloop function as a distraction that helps derail serious public transit and rail projects.
• One commenter cites Musk’s stated intent (to a biographer) to hurt California high-speed rail as evidence this isn’t just apocryphal.
• Others argue CA high-speed rail itself is an over-budget boondoggle, so undermining it wouldn’t be a clear negative.

Environmental violations and regulatory response

• Commenters are disturbed that Boring allegedly stopped illegal dumping only while inspectors were present, then resumed afterward, seeing this as clear willfulness.
• Many view the ~$500k fine as trivial “cost of doing business,” especially given the wealth behind the company.
• Some highlight a related long pattern of violations in Las Vegas and suggest local regulators are overly lenient because the project is seen as “cool.”

How big should fines be?

• One side argues penalties should at least exceed cleanup costs and any savings from non-compliance, and willful violations should potentially trigger criminal charges.
• Another side frames fines primarily as compensation for quantified damage; if damage is limited and cleaned, a modest fine can be “fair.”
• This sparks a more abstract debate: whether environmental harm should be treated more like a mere financial externality or like endangering public health (e.g., dumping corrosive waste into systems leading to drinking water).

Corporate power, accountability, and inequality

• Multiple comments generalize this case to a broader pattern: wealthy firms routinely break rules, treat fines as fees, and face little personal accountability at the executive level.
• Some see this as an inherent feature of corporate personhood and shareholder-value norms; fines hit the entity, not the individuals who ordered or tolerated the behavior.
• A few call for fines scaled to company size or to the net worth of top executives/shareholders, arguing a $500k penalty is meaningless compared to their wealth.
• Others note that historically, extreme gaps between elites and the rest have sometimes led to social upheaval, arguing this trajectory is dangerous.

Media coverage and bias discussion

• ProPublica’s reporting on the Las Vegas violations is praised by some as essential watchdog work.
• Others argue ProPublica is ideologically “left” and selectively targets private-sector or anti-union interests, with comparatively less focus on public-sector self-dealing.
• A long subthread debates one example where a ProPublica article allegedly misused an academic citation, with commenters divided on whether this undermines the outlet’s overall reliability.
• Several participants argue that, regardless of any ideological tilt, the specific facts about Boring’s conduct and fines stand on their own.

Industry practice vs. Boring’s waste handling

• A commenter contrasts standard tunneling practice—onsite slurry treatment plants that separate solids and recycle water—with Boring’s reported approach of dumping wet sludge on vacant lots and into sewer systems.
• This comparison underlines the view that Boring is cutting corners rather than innovating, and shifting disposal costs and risks onto the public system.