Elon Musk’s high-speed tunnel project is the big loser in Chicago’s race for mayor
Photo by Joshua Lott/Getty Images
Candidates are indifferent toward Musk’s tunnel project
候補者たちは、イーロンマスクのトンネルプロジェクトに無関心。
indifferent - 無関心、冷ややか
If elected mayor of Chicago next month, former federal prosecutor Lori Lightfoot may pull the plug on Elon Musk’s proposal to build a high-tech rapid transit system in America’s third-largest city. In an email to The Verge, Lightfoot said her opposition to the so-called “Tesla in a tunnel” project is simple: “We don’t need O’Hare Express.” Her opponent, Cook County board president Toni Preckwinkle, says if she were elected, she would put Musk’s tunnel plan “on pause.”
来月のシカゴ市長選で、もしも前連邦検察官のロリ・ライトフット氏が選出されるなら、アメリカ第三の大都市にハイテク高速移動システムを構築するというイーロンマスクの企画は却下されるかも知れません。
The Vergeへのeメールでライトフット氏は、「トンネル内のテスラ」と呼ばれているプロジェクトに対する彼女の反対は、単に「私たちにはオヘア特急は不要なのです」と言いました。
彼女の対戦相手、クック郡理事長のトニ・プレックウィンクルは、もし彼女が選出されるなら、彼女はマスクのトンネル計画を「一時停止」させるつもりだと言いました。
prosecutor - 検察官
pull the plug - プラグを引き抜く。電源供給を断つという意味でよく出てきますけど、単に却下としました。停止させるでもよいかも。
Lightfoot and Preckwinkle finished first and second, respectively, in the February 26th contest to succeed current Mayor Rahm Emanuel. No one received enough votes to win outright, so the pair will face off in a final April 2nd runoff election.
That’s bad news for Musk. Both candidates are indifferent toward the tech mogul’s futuristic plan, which involves digging a pair of tunnels underneath Chicago and whisking people back and forth from the downtown Loop area to O’Hare International Airport using autonomous pod-like vehicles, or electric skates, in 12 minutes. Last June, Emanuel announced the selection of Musk’s Boring Company as the winner of the O’Hare Express sweepstakes after Musk promised he could build the massive project with just a $1 billion of his own money and no public subsidies.
Lightfoot, who finished first with 17 percent of the vote and leads Preckwinkle in early polls, has been antagonistic toward the project. There’s no mention of Musk or the O’Hare Express on her nine-page transportation plan. Last summer, she also demanded that Emanuel return $55,300 in campaign contributions he received from Musk from 2013 to 2015 because the city’s selection of the Boring Company as a contractor looked like a “pay-for-play” scheme in retrospect. “The optics are bad,” Lightfoot said, according to Crain’s. “He ought to return the money.” (Emanuel refused.)
Lori Lightfoot, a former prosecutor, is a front-runner to replace Chicago Mayor Emanuel. Photo by Scott Olson / Getty Images
前検察官、ロリ・ライトフット氏は、シカゴ市長エマニュエルに成り代わるフロントランナーだ。
Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle, (third from the left) is also in the running to replace Mayor Emanuel. ｜Photo by Tasos Katopodis / Getty Images
クック郡理事長プレックウィンクル（左から3人目）もまたエマニュエルに成り代わろうとしている。
In her email to The Verge, Lightfoot further explained her opposition to the project:
The Vergeへの彼女のeメールで、ライトフットがこのプロジェクトに反対理由を少し説明した。
My concern only grows as the city fails to be transparent around the bid and contracting process. Taxpayers have a right to know the real costs here, but this is an administration that has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting transparency in the past. We’ve got to build a transparent, accountable Chicago, and this project is a good place to start.
“TAXPAYERS HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW THE REAL COSTS HERE.”
納税者には本当のコストを知る権利がある
Preckwinkle isn’t enthused about The Boring Company, either. “With millions of Chicagoans relying on the CTA and Metra for reliable transportation, our innovation, and financial efforts should be focused on funding improvements for these systems and improving existing transportation,” Preckwinkle told The Verge through a spokesperson.
プレックウィンクル氏も、このBoringカンパニーに熱心ではありません。
「信頼できる輸送手段や、我々のイノベーション、そして金融に関する取組にむけてCTAとMetraに期待している数百万のシカゴ市民は、これらのシステムに対する資金獲得の改善や既存の輸送手段に焦点を合わせるべきです。」プレックウィンクル氏は広報官を通じて The Verge に語りました。
enthused - 熱心
reliable - 信頼できる
relying - 頼っている、期待している。
If Musk’s project is ultimately rejected, it’s possible that a few thousand votes made the difference. Bill Daley was seen as Musk’s best hope for getting his tunnel built. Of the 14 candidates vying for mayor, the former Obama chief of staff was the only one who openly supported it. But he finished third, about 15,000 votes shy of Lightfoot’s 93,000 and barely 7,000 votes short of what he needed to pass Preckwinkle’s 86,000 votes and make the cut for the runoff election.
That means Musk’s best chance still lies with Emanuel. But time is running out: Emanuel leaves office in May, and there’s still no contract between the Boring Company and the Chicago Infrastructure Trust (CIT), the mayor’s nonprofit that’s in charge of organizing private-public partnerships. Shannon Breymaier, the mayor’s director of communications, would only say that negotiations with the Boring Company are still ongoing. Sam Teller, director of the office of the CEO at the Boring Company, said in an email that he had no update on the negotiation and did not respond to follow-up questions.
Even if CIT does manage to finalize a deal with Musk before the monthly City Council meeting in April — the final meeting under Emanuel — there’s no guarantee that such a significant project will get rubber stamped. The council has been rocked recently by political scandal and some alderman say they’re in no hurry to do the bidding of a lame duck mayor.
The next council may be even more hostile toward Musk. Several incumbents, including some reliable Emanuel allies, were ousted in the February 26th election. Others face runoffs against left-leaning activists or outsiders who campaigned against the city’s business-first neoliberal agenda.
“This project seems mostly for tourists and Musk’s reputation, and I’m not sure it would be a good investment for the city,” said Daniel La Spata, a community organizer and public policy professional who upset scandal-plagued Alderman Proco “Joe” Moreno. “It’s a distraction from the real transportation needs of the city.”
La Spata is one of two members of the Democratic Socialists of America elected to the council last month. Three more led their races in total votes and could win their runoff in April, meaning that Chicago could have five DSA aldermen in May. There’s is already talk among them about building a democratic socialist caucus on the council that could better fight against projects like Musk’s.
“On a national level, here we’re talking about Green New Deal and taking care of this planet that will die on us if we don’t take care of it. Locally we need to move away from individualistic policies and systems that benefit a few,” said Rossana Rodríguez-Sánchez, a socialist and DSA member attempting to defeat incumbent Alderman DebMell in April’s runoff election.
Not everyone, however, is eager to see an O’Hare Express plan die. There are those like Rick Harnish, director of the Midwest High Speed Rail Association, who want to see the city pivot to a more conventional project that’s more compatible with existing train infrastructure such as the Chicago Transit Authority’s Blue Line service or the Metra, the Northeastern Illinois regional commuter service.
“It was hard for [Emanuel] to say no to Musk because he said it would be of no cost to the city. How do you pass that up?” says Harnish. “Regardless, we still need an express train from Loop to O’Hare—it’s what we need to do to keep our city competitive and attractive to business.”
OF 28 PUBLIC COMMENTS, 25 OPPOSED MUSK’S PLAN
If there’s any good news for Musk, it’s that one piece of the approval process could be in place next week. The Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) is meeting on March 13th to vote on including O’Hare Express to its long-term regional transportation plan “On To 2050.” Doing so would meet a requirement of a federal environmental review process. But even that’s not a sure thing. Some CMAP members say they’re concerned that the Boring Company’s plan is too vague to warrant amending their plan, and of 28 public comments collected by the agency, 25 opposed O’Hare Express, two supported it, and one expressed conditional support. That’s not exactly a groundswell of enthusiasm.
Many of those comments echo Preckwinkle’s belief that Chicago should focus on improving the city’s existing transportation systems. Why bother with a fanciful new tunnel system that will get you from downtown to the airport in 12 minutes for $25 when you can upgrade the Blue Line, an underground transit system that can get you there in 40 minutes for $2.50?
On a list of things that Chicago needs in terms of transportation, Rodríguez-Sánchez puts Musk’s plan last.
“We need to expand and improve the public transit system and make it greener first,” she said. “They call this [O’Hare Express] a pipe dream, but it’s not even that—it’s absolutely ridiculous. Elon Musk over-promises and under-delivers.”
At last year’s I/O developer’s conference, Google showed off a new augmented reality feature for Google Maps, which would provide people with directions from your phone’s camera in realtime. As my colleague Chaim Gartenberg noted, it’s a bit like what was promised with Google Glass, but without the headset. The Wall Street Journal’s David Pierce got to try out an early version of the feature.
He says that while it “isn’t likely to be your primary turn-by-turn option, it’s a huge step in the right direction for Google Maps.” He described how the feature worked — the app picks up a person’s location via GPS, and then uses Street View data to narrow it down to your exact location. Once his location was pinned down, it displayed big arrows and directions in his screen. “It was as if Maps had drawn my directions onto the real world, though nobody else could see them.”
THE APP ISN’T DESIGNED AS ONE’S PRIMARY MEANS OF NAVIGATION
このアプリは誰かの主要なナビゲーション手段としては設計されていない。
He goes on to say that the app doesn’t appear to let you use the camera persistently, urging you to put it down after a short while, and displaying its regular map interface when you do so. Rachel Inman, the company’s user-experience lead tells him that “it’s for those moments like, ‘I’m getting off the subway, where do I go first?’”
Google has reportedly been experimenting with the user interface, finding that users will follow a line on the ground too closely, and that an animated guide will keep them glued to the screen. Pierce notes that the interface he previewed could change, and that Google isn’t saying when the feature will roll out to users, just that it’ll be available to “a few Local Guides” soon, and “will come to everyone only when Google is satisfied that it’s ready.”
Pierce notes that there are a couple of takeaways from this. The first is that a big advantage of the feature is that it provide people with very specific location location data, and that it’s a feature that isn’t likely to remain on phones, but on AR-capable glasses. Companies like Apple, Facebook, Google, North, Vuzix, and others have all been working on, or are selling their own AR glasses, meaning that Google’s new feature could eventually make its way into your line of sight.
GitHub now gives free users unlimited private repositories
GitHub is by far the most popular way to build and share software. That said, one weakness of the platform is that it limits who can create private repositories – that is, software projects that aren’t visible to the broader public, and are shared only with a handful of pre-defined collaborators – to paying users.
Fortunately, that’s no longer the case, as GitHub today announced it was giving users of its free plan access to unlimited private repositories. This is great news for GitHub’s users, but there is a caveat, of course.
Private repositories on free accounts are limited to three collaborators apiece. So, while this might work for a small project (like, for example, a team competing in a hackathon), it isn’t particularly well-suited for actual commercial usage.
There’s little ～ - ～ はほとんど無い（There’s a little で「少しある」になります）
cannibalizing - 共食い
Until recently, developers who wanted to create private git repositories without opening their wallets were forced to use a rival service – most frequently BitBucket. Today’s news, obviously, isn’t great for Atlassian’s flagship code sharing platform, but it does mean that coders aren’t forced to use two disparate code management services for their private and public projects
The absence of free private repositories essentially meant that people were forced to air their dirty laundry – their half-baked projects that never got finished and the clumsy spaghetti code they’d sooner forget. Now that people have the option to hide this behind a perfect shroud, will this harm GitHub’s culture of shameless openness and candidness?
