LLoop Opportunity ExplorerDesktop screen · 20 Jul 2026

National Loop opportunity + Boring Company activity screen

Keep every city in the ranking. Flag what TBC is already doing.

Opportunity and TBC status are separate layers: active markets remain useful expansion or partnership cases, Atlanta remains the strongest strict open-field case, and Los Angeles joins as a flagged TBC-return opportunity.

DUAL TRACKMap Atlanta and Los Angeles in detail; retain every scored market with a clear activity label.
32scored U.S. metros
33TBC signals tracked
2mapped city concepts
4pilots under 2 mi
VerifiedStatus overlay

Operating, checking, prior and open-field markets stay visible instead of being disqualified.

Atlanta81.9 open-field

West Midtown and Buckhead create two short MARTA-feeder tests without a verified TBC project.

Los Angeles72.1 flagged

TBC's Hawthorne test track is active; public passenger concepts are dormant and substitutes are live.

Expanded32 metros

New open candidates include Columbus, Indianapolis, Philadelphia, Detroit, Minneapolis and Anaheim.

32 scored metros · 33 public TBC signals

Rank the opportunity first; use TBC status as context.

“Open field” means no verified public activity in the reviewed sources—not proof that no private conversation occurred.

32scored markets
15strict open field
6being checked now
33TBC-touched entries tracked
Decision weights

Assumed Comparative 0–100 judgments from public evidence; not an engineering approval.

RankMarket / issueInitial segmentTBC statusScore
01Las VegasNV · Operational benchmark + major approved expansionAirport ↔ resort portal · ~1.7 miOperating↗92
02DallasTX · Strong score; no longer whitespaceLove Field ↔ Bachman · 1.17 miTBC checking↗87
03NashvilleTN · Music City Loop under constructionDowntown ↔ West End · <2 mi phaseBuilding↗84
04OrlandoFL · Karst + live TBC negotiationOCCC concourse link · ~1.6 miNegotiating↗83
05AtlantaGA · Recommended open-field marketWest Midtown ↔ Arts Center · ~1.35 miOpen field↗82
06Raleigh–DurhamNC · Strong gap; BRT alternative activeDurham Station ↔ Duke / VA · ~1.8 miOpen field↗80
07Phoenix–ScottsdaleAZ · Clean local gap; intercity aspirationFashion Square ↔ Civic Center · ~1.45 miAspiration↗80
08San DiegoCA · Airport connector alternatives activeSAN terminals ↔ Middletown · ~1.45 miOpen field↗79
09MiamiFL · Groundwater + dormant TBC historyMiamiCentral ↔ PortMiami · ~1.8 miPrior talks↗78
10AustinTX · Industrial TBC presenceConvention Center ↔ South Bank · ~1.3 miTBC present↗77
11ChicagoIL · O'Hare Express selection dormantRiver North ↔ Loop station · ~1.4 miPrior award↗77
12ColumbusOH · Strong compact gap; LinkUS is the comparatorConvention Center ↔ OSU South · ~1.6 miOpen field↗76
13IndianapolisIN · Compact anchors; BRT expansion is the comparatorConvention / Lucas Oil ↔ Bottleworks · ~1.4 miOpen field↗76
14San AntonioTX · Exploration continues; old airport concept dormantRiver Walk ↔ Pearl · ~1.7 miExploring↗75
15CharlotteNC · Silver Line + prior regional talksCLT terminal ↔ future rail node · ~1.7 miPrior talks↗75
16Kansas CityMO/KS · 2026 finalist, not selectedUnion Station ↔ West Bottoms · ~1.8 miReviewed↗75
17PhiladelphiaPA · Navy Yard last-mile gapNRG Station ↔ Navy Yard · ~1.5 miOpen field↗75
18DetroitMI · Michigan Central creates an anchor-led pilotMichigan Central ↔ Downtown · ~1.7 miOpen field↗74
19Minneapolis–St. PaulMN · Good pilot geometry; some rail overlapNorth Loop ↔ University edge · ~1.8 miOpen field↗74
20AnaheimCA · Large visitor cluster; California delivery riskARTIC ↔ Resort / Convention · ~2.0 miOpen field↗73
21Los AngelesCA · TBC R&D present; public concepts dormantDowntown Inglewood K ↔ SoFi / Intuit · ~1.6 miTBC present↗72
22HoustonTX · Passenger concept prior; flood-tunnel discussion liveTMC Transit Center ↔ Rice Village · ~1.6 miTBC checking↗71
23SeattleWA · Strong gap; difficult geology and deliverySeattle Center ↔ Capitol Hill · ~1.8 miOpen field↗70
24BaltimoreMD · 2026 concept declined by public partnersCamden Yards ↔ Harbor East · ~1.0 miDeclined↗70
25Reno–SparksNV · TBC feasibility work reportedTRIC mobility hub ↔ Tesla gate · <2 miStudying↗70
26HonoluluHI · Open field; high geology/delivery riskAla Moana ↔ Waikiki gateway · ~1.7 miOpen field↗69
27Salt Lake CityUT · Park City study included TBC alignmentsSalt Lake Central ↔ Capitol · ~1.7 miStudied↗68
28TampaFL · Open field; water riskWater Street ↔ Tampa General · ~1.2 miOpen field↗67
29BostonMA · High demand; difficult subsurface and approvalsSouth Station ↔ Seaport / BCEC · ~1.3 miOpen field↗66
30SacramentoCA · Airport corridor potential; modest urban demandDowntown ↔ Railyards · <2 miOpen field↗65
31JacksonvilleFL · Open field; existing shuttle overlapJRTC ↔ stadium · ~1.6 miOpen field↗58
32New OrleansLA · Live TBC diligence + severe ground riskUPT ↔ Convention district · ~1.7 miTBC checking↗58

Boring Company activity watch

Flag active work, diligence, presence and old proposals separately.

A prior pitch is not an active project; a challenge finalist is not construction. The distinctions make TBC involvement usable rather than disqualifying.

Prior / not selected

Chicago2018 O'Hare Express selection; dormant↗Washington / Baltimore35-mile project paused; 2026 Baltimore concept declined↗Miami2021–22 study / talks; no award↗Fort LauderdaleLas Olas feasibility agreement; no later advancement found↗Charlotte / Lake NormanExploratory regional talks; dormant↗Denver2026 pedestrian finalist; not selected↗Kansas City, KS2026 pedestrian finalist; not selected↗New York City2017 intercity aspiration; no formal approval↗San JoséUnsuccessful airport-connector proposal↗Ontario / Rancho CucamongaAirport connector proposal abandoned in 2022↗Salt Lake / Park CityStudy included TBC-provided alignments↗Ketchikan, AK2026 finalist; not selected↗Orchard Park, NY2026 finalist; not selected↗Waco, TX2026 finalist; not selected↗Knoxville, TN2026 finalist; not selected↗Gatlinburg, TN2026 finalist; not selected↗Fort Smith, AR2026 finalist; not selected↗

Checked through 20 July 2026 against TBC's current portfolio, the 2026 Tunnel Vision challenge and results, and indexed government / transit / airport records. Absence of public evidence is not proof of zero private contact.

Concept alignment

Atlanta Connector Loop

Plan the corridor; finance only one evidence-led pilot first.

NetworkWest MidtownBuckhead
Illustrative centerlines · not surveyed · © OpenStreetMap contributors

Atlanta · open-field case · two initial segments

Choose between stronger mobility value and a smaller execution test.

Both are shorter than two route miles, feed MARTA and avoid duplicating its north–south rail spine.

RECOMMENDED FIRST BUILD
A

West Midtown Link

Westside Provisions ↔ Arts Center MARTA

~1.4 mi

Closes a rail-access gap for a fast-growing mixed-use district and creates a useful MARTA feeder.

Demand
4 / 5
Network leverage
5 / 5
Permitting
3 / 5
Screening cost
$90–210M
Fatal-flaw gate Portal parcels, utilities, railroad / I-75 interfaces and the Arts Center rail box.
B

Buckhead Last Mile

Buckhead MARTA ↔ Buckhead Village

~0.9 mi

Short private-anchor connector with a credible business coalition and lower construction scope.

Demand
4 / 5
Network leverage
3 / 5
Permitting
3 / 5
Screening cost
$65–150M
Primary gate Prove incremental value over Buc shuttle, bus and walking; solve MARTA / GDOT median access.

Scenario lab

Fare revenue does not finance the full build by itself.

Adjust the assumptions. Every output below is a screening scenario, not a forecast or bid.

Capital assumptions

Assumed

Atlanta Connector Loop

$1.15BCalculated screening capex

Operating assumptions

Annual fare revenue$73M
Before-debt operating contribution$46M

Positive operations do not prove capital financeability. Station cofunding, land, value capture or public availability payments are still needed.

Feasibility gates

Six questions decide whether this remains a map or becomes a project.

  1. 01

    Fire and evacuation

    Can the local fire authority approve twin EV tubes, cross passages, smoke control, egress, towing and thermal-runaway response?

    STOP / REDESIGN
  2. 02

    Portal + transit interfaces

    Can the preferred pilot secure portal parcels and cross utilities, railroad / highway constraints and the transit-station zone safely?

    DROP / REALIGN A
  3. 03

    Continuous subsurface rights

    Can the route stay under streets and committed anchor parcels without foundation, utility or title conflicts?

    REALIGN
  4. 04

    Ground truth

    Do borings locate competent ground without long reaches of weak saprolite, abrupt rockhead or water-bearing fractures?

    STOP IF ADVANTAGE FAILS
  5. 05

    Calibrated capacity

    Can a link sustain at least 1,500 passengers/hour/direction with under five-minute queues and safe event operations?

    LIMIT THE NETWORK
  6. 06

    Commercial support

    Will at least two major anchors contribute station land, capital or recurring availability revenue?

    NO FULL BUILD

Next 90 days

Spend the first dollars on killing the wrong alignment early.

0–30

Validate the need

Acquire observed OD and travel-time data; benchmark MARTA, buses, shuttles, walking and every funded substitute.

0–45

Lock station partners

Obtain written interest from the transit agency, city departments and at least two private destination anchors.

15–60

Run fatal-flaw engineering

Map subsurface title, utilities, initial borings, jurisdictional interfaces and fire-life-safety requirements.

45–90

Select one pilot

Issue an independent Class 4/5 cost and capacity review, then choose Pilot A or Pilot B—not both.