NYC's subway system has nearly 1000 miles of track. The cost of that was spread over years. Similarly, the 68 mile network proposed here will be built over ye

NYC's subway system has nearly 1000 miles of track. The cost of that was spread over years. Similarly, the 68 mile network proposed here will be built over years. Based on Boring Company's own PR, it took them a year to build 1.7 miles of track at the convention center. 68 miles will take them 40 years. Considering the reality of construction schedules and the fact that none of this is permitted or designed and using your $50B number, this will take half a century or more to build. So that amounts to less than $1 billion a year. Does NYC take on $15 billion in infrastructure projects a year? Probably. I find it entirely plausible that NYC would take on $750 billion in infrastructure projects over half a century. Hell, if NYC were to attempt to build their own subway network again using the Second Ave. number (and conceding that it's inflated), it would take nearly $5 TRILLION dollars. Handicap that number for the inflated cost and we're still looking at NYC having already spent multiples of the amount you are asserting NYC would equivalently have to take on on a project-to-project basis with this. As to the rest of your post, I agree - this proposed 68 mile tunnel system in a place that lacks the requisite urban density for public transit efficiency will have limited ridership and will be worthless, if it's ever completed. More likely it will be abandoned partway through and will only serve to become a literal obstacle to future tunnels/development.