
Elon Musk's Solution for Dodger Stadium Traffic Is Full of Holes - apsec112
https://urbanize.la/post/elon-musks-solution-dodger-stadium-traffic-full-holes
======
slg
I really don't get the hate this is receiving considering the context of what
is going on in Los Angeles. Traffic is a problem city wide, but it is
particularly bad for events at Dodgers Stadium. Musk's plan won't fix all of
that, but it won't hurt. I also don't see how the plan is any more outlandish
than this [1] plan for gondolas to Dodgers Stadium which is closer to actually
happening. Either way, both of those projects are using private money. If
people want to try to fix traffic themselves and all they need from the public
is permission, why should we stop them? That is an infinitely better approach
that approving spending hundreds of millions of public dollars on a trolley
system a few miles from Dodgers Stadium [2] or an even more massive
investments into a subway system that most Angelenos never use and therefore
are hesitant to support.

[1] - [http://www.lamag.com/citythinkblog/gondola-
proposal/](http://www.lamag.com/citythinkblog/gondola-proposal/)

[2] - [http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-downtown-
str...](http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-downtown-
streetcar-20180818-story.html)

~~~
Krasnol
> I really don't get the hate this is receiving

It seems Musk went the usual hype wave way. Once it was cool to like things he
does. Now it is cool to hate what he does.

It's not helping that his behavior on twitter reinforced that trend but it was
one already before that.

~~~
Fnoord
That's akin to people saying the truth lies in the middle, a fallacy [1].

If you want to reach a conclusion you need to analyse all the situations, and
figure out if the criticism is warranted yes or no. In case of the pedophile
tweet my opinion is that, yes the criticism is warranted. YMMV..

..but I'm not sure we should have this discussion in this very thread..

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation)

~~~
skybrian
Understanding the hype cycle doesn't tell you who is right. It just makes you
more skeptical of going along with the hype cycle.

In particular, Elon Musk's bad behavior on Twitter doesn't tell us very much
about the technical feasibility of building a tunnel, any more than it tells
us whether a SpaceX rocket will fly. Mood affiliation might make it seem like
it's closely related, but logically it's not.

------
skybrian
It seems like this tunnel is better thought of as a tech demo that will be
open to the public.

If it turns out to be more expensive than they think, they'll find out soon
enough, without cost to taxpayers.

If it works, it won't carry much traffic, but it's proof of concept and people
will have fun trying it. And Boring Company will be able to do something more
ambitious with better proof of their claims.

~~~
sundaeofshock
But it’s a horrible POC. It’s not solving any serious mass transit problem.
No, the Boring company exists to solve Musk’s “I don’t want to share space
with other people” problem.

The real problem with The Boring Company is the fact that anyone takes it
seriously as a form of mass transit. The damn idea is crowding out real
solutions while we indulge Musk’s pipe dream.

~~~
Skunkleton
I understand the outrage, but what are the "real" solutions, who is pushing
them, and why aren't they gaining traction? Maybe tunnels suck, but at least
there is something happening.

~~~
erentz
> but what are the "real" solutions

Trains. Lots of trains. Inside tunnels. On the surface. On elevated tracks.
That interconnect in a network so you can get from anywhere to anywhere. On
trains.

> and why aren't they gaining traction?

Because everytime someone points out mass transit is a solved problem, has
been for over 100 years, everyone responds somehow saying "that's
unrealistic!" or "eww gross you want me to sit next to someone else!"

~~~
Skunkleton
I love trains. Still, other than a few major cities, they aren't a great way
to get around in the states. It is a shame there isn't more public support for
building more rail.

------
bnycum
I'm a huge baseball fan and saw this Twitter thread this morning[0].
Definitely an interesting scroll. There was a meeting yesterday at Dodger
stadium to discuss this, that was announced just 12 hours prior. I'll bullet
some high points.

* Some of the commenters at the meeting were actually SpaceX employees.

* It's an idea to boost attendance, meanwhile Dodgers led the majors in average attendance per game. (It's true the Dodgers have a lot of season tickets to companies, who might not actually use them).

* Could only transport 3% of fans.

[0]:
[https://twitter.com/erinscafe/status/1034456203890372609](https://twitter.com/erinscafe/status/1034456203890372609)

------
mcguire
From [http://www.chicagomag.com/city-life/June-2018/Theres-
Reason-...](http://www.chicagomag.com/city-life/June-2018/Theres-Reason-to-Be-
Skeptical-About-Elon-Musks-OHare-Express/):

" _[According to the Boring Company FAQ,] The current standard for a one-lane
tunnel is approximately 28 feet. By placing vehicles on a stabilized electric
skate, the diameter can be reduced to less than 14 feet. Reducing the diameter
in half reduces tunneling costs by 3-4 times._

" _This claim is contradicted in professional literature. Studies of particle
accelerator tunnels as well as rail tunnels that look at different diameters
find that reducing the diameter in half reduces costs by a factor of two and
not three or four._ "

That's actually quite surprising. I would have thought that changing the
diameter would have no effect whatsoever on the price of boring a tunnel, to a
first order of approximation. Almost none of the variables involved are
dependent on the diameter of the tunnel.

~~~
infogulch
Well the area of a circular tunnel is proportial to the square of the
diameter. Perhaps a lower area allows the bore to tunnel faster? That kinda
makes sense, but I have no idea how much the area of a circle relates to
tunnel boring in reality, if at all.

~~~
mcguire
The tunnel boring machine would likely cost much more, for a larger tunnel,
but it's fixed relative to the length and a capital expenditure, much of which
can be recovered or re-used. The amount of material moved would be
proportional to the area of the tunnel, but I can't see that as a major cost
factor. A larger machine would need more lining material, and more workers...

And it still doesn't address the terminals.

------
JohnJamesRambo
It seems most of his ideas lately are like this. Was he always so...wrong? Or
is something personally going on in his life? Rumors that he tweeted about the
privatization of Tesla while on LSD seem to make a lot of sense when you watch
his recent erratic behavior.

------
slivym
What I don't understand about the Boring company is that Musk's vision seems
to be: Cheap tunnels so that we can throw lots and lots of cars down them thus
alleviating congestion. Everyone gets mad and points out that cars driving
down tunnels do nothing to alleviate congestion, because cars driving down
tunnels result in tiny tiny capacity (2800 people per day in this case?) and
that if you want to solve congestion just build more train tracks and run more
trains on them.

Here's my question: Why is no one talking about the idea of using what Musk is
pushing as a new incredible cheap way of building tunnels to _build tunnels
with trains in them_?

~~~
rohit2412
Ask yourself this, if Tesla is so good at making autonomous driving software,
and can make the cheapest batteries, and can automate manufacturing more than
anyone deemed possible, why do they not sell these. Why do they target only
half a million cars a year while they could completely take over multiple
industries by becoming tier-1 supplier to various manufacturers? It is to
maintain hype, the real truth is somewhat humbling.

The same applies to boring company, if they can dig tunnels so cheaply, they
would become tbm suppliers or contractors, not an end to end solution.

------
joshuaheard
Why don't they build a spur off the LA Metro from Union Station a short
distance up to Dodger Stadium? They build a metro but it doesn't go where
people want, like the airport, the Rose Bowl, or the new stadium they are
building.

~~~
tomjakubowski
> They build a metro but it doesn't go where people want, like the airport,
> the Rose Bowl, or the new stadium they are building.

Metro rail connects some of the densest residential (South LA, Koreatown/Mid-
Wilshire, Mid-City, Palms, Hollywood) and commercial (Long Beach, Pasadena,
Koreatown, Hollywood, Downtown, Santa Monica) districts of the region.

Prioritizing Metro rail construction to bring people to POIs like LAX or the
Rose Bowl for what amounts to a handful of trips a year per person would be a
waste. Better to serve trips people make nearly every day, like commuting to
work or school and going shopping.

~~~
joshuaheard
POIs like the airport and entertainment venues are perfect for the Metro
because they cause huge traffic jams, there is very little parking, and the
added convenience for occasional riders would increase overall ridership.
Metro for commuters is great, but what about everybody else? If you want
people to take the Metro, go where they want to go. I don't use the Metro for
commuting but would use it to go the the airport or ball game to avoid traffic
and parking.

------
JohnJamesRambo
It seems most of his ideas lately are like this. Was he always so...wrong? Or
is something personally going on in his life? Rumors that he tweeted about the
privatization while on LSD seem to make a lot of sense when you watch his
recent erratic behavior.

[https://jalopnik.com/was-elon-musk-tweeting-on-acid-
azealia-...](https://jalopnik.com/was-elon-musk-tweeting-on-acid-azealia-
banks-says-yes-1828307241)

------
d3sandoval
I mean... There's at least two holes, right? One at each end of the tunnel?

------
pokemongoaway
A lot of his ideas are full of holes:

Hyperloop: See all of the problems here:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNFesa01llk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNFesa01llk)

Boring company: summary of issues here:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBtL3qDvdZc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBtL3qDvdZc)

SpaceX: How will we fund the amount of rocket fuel required to get the stuff
to Mars that can produce an atmosphere? If producing an atmosphere isn't
required, then how will indoor atmosphere be maintained sustainably
(financially)? Matt Damon's math didn't seem to work out in that movie...

Tesla: So far so good, but what about battery recycling? “We are at the very
beginning in energy storage in general,” says Phil Hermann, chief energy
engineer at Panasonic Eco Solutions. “Most of the projects currently going on
are either demo projects or learning experiences for the utilities. There is
very little direct commercial stuff going on. “Elon Musk is out there saying
you can do things now that the rest of us are hearing and going, ‘really?’ We
wish we could but it’s not really possible yet.”
[https://www.theguardian.com/vital-signs/2015/jun/10/tesla-
ba...](https://www.theguardian.com/vital-signs/2015/jun/10/tesla-batteries-
environment-lithium-elon-musk-powerwall)

SolarCity: Just look at the customer reviews so far:
[https://news.energysage.com/solarcity-complaints-what-
homeow...](https://news.energysage.com/solarcity-complaints-what-homeowners-
think/)

I would urge Mr Musk to focus on Batteries & long-term Tesla ownership. It
would be a shame for that not to work out!

I hope this comment lasts for 5 years :)

~~~
gok
Please don't link to Phil Mason / Thunderf00t. In addition to being a
misogynist (top videos include "Feminism versus FACTS" and "Why feminism
poisons everything"), he's also a food scientist posing as a rocket scientist.

~~~
pk3469
Speaking against a particular brand of feminism does not make one a
misogynist. From watching his videos, it's pretty clear that he isn't
prejudiced against women. He just calls out bullshit claims by the likes of
Anita Sarkeesian, who is on record stating that video games are a 'male sex
fantasy' and whose only credential is being a perpetual victim. People like
Phil Mason and Stephen Fry are a desperately needed public voice against
bullshit disguised as feminism or social justice.

If Anita Sarkeesian went unchecked, games like GTA would be banned by now and
reclassified as rape simulators.

This attitude of blindly dismissing people's arguments or entire credentials
just because you bought into an agenda, this refusal to engage in civil debate
and discuss matters on their merit. I think this is one of the factors
destroying democracies around the world today. Everything must be polarizing,
everyone expressing views you disagree with must be shunned. Any attempts to
debate established status quo must be shouted down.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Sarkeesian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Sarkeesian)

~~~
favorited
> whose only credential is being a perpetual victim

The Wikipedia page you linked says she's a "media critic, blogger, and public
speaker." It seems to me those are her credentials.

~~~
pk3469
She is all of those things by virtue of playing public victim. She was a no
name vlogger with a handful of subscribers. Her entire 'career', if you can
call it that, began when the internet overwhelmed her kickstarter to fund a
bunch of videos about how misogynistic video games are. She's the Kim
Kardashian of feminism and an insult to 2nd and 3rd wave feminists who fought
to improve society through intelligent discourse.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqJUxqkcnKA&list=PLBBDFEC9F5...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqJUxqkcnKA&list=PLBBDFEC9F5893C4AF)

Watch this and tell me that you think she is making an intelligent argument
about anything. And while you're at it, have a think about why the comments
and votes might be disabled on those videos.

~~~
favorited
I'm aware of who Anita is, and I have no expectation of changing your mind
about her.

That said, I think she was "all of those things" when people contributed over
100k to her Kickstarter, which was before the Gamergate harassment started. So
she was earning her keep well before she was made the "public victim," as you
say.

Of course the comments are disabled for her videos. Normal YouTube comments
are toxic enough. She _literally_ got bomb threats over scheduled appearances
on conference panels – do you think comments on her videos are productive? If
your Twitter was filled by anonymous users threatening to rape you, and kill
your parents, etc., then you'd disable comments on your videos too.

------
jackconnor
The "hole" is that they think construction costs are too high based on
"engineering literature". While the literature does undoubtedly say this,
Musk's MO with SpaceX is doing things way, way cheaper than competitors, so
I'm interested to see how he handles it.

~~~
takk309
Decades of civil engineering differs with you. The cost to move a cubic yard
of soil is rather well known for a given area. Labor costs are well
established. I don't see how he is going to cut enough corners to make it
cheaper by any noticeable amount. Privately funded earthwork projects are
nothing new.

~~~
natosaichek
>The cost to move a cubic yard of soil is rather well known for a given area

Given traditional technologies and techniques

> Labor costs are well established

Primarily for union labor using traditional tools and techniques.

When spacex was started, the cost to move a kg of satellite into low earth
orbit was well known. The cost of a new rocket development program from an
engineering hours / labor cost perspective was also well established. He broke
a few assumptions people had, which resulted in dramatically lower costs.

I don't see why that strategy wouldn't _fundamentally_ play out similarly for
TBC.

~~~
takk309
Traditional technologies and techniques for earth moving are rather simple and
well refined. Moving soil still requires one to excavate the soil and
transport the soil. I can't see any way around that. There are only so many
ways to improve on this model. In rural environments it is possible to use
larger haul trucks to move the materials. The urban nature of the construction
site will limit the size of vehicles that can be used to transport the
materials. As for the excavation equipment, a tunnel boring machine (TBM) is
obviously the tool of choice. Maybe some efficiencies can be gained with the
TBM through some sort of re-usability.

The space analogy, in mind, is not a great one. Prior to SpaceX, launches were
generally a rare and expensive thing. Musk has changed that by making the
process more efficient. Earth work, on the other hand, is done every day.
There is likely a large dirt moving operation somewhere near every person that
will see this thread. Be it excavation for the foundation of a large building
or the construction of a roadway, moving earth is extremely common.

[edit] Clarity in the last sentence of the first paragraph.

------
mixmastamyk
Another super-negative article. Let them try and pay for it I say. As a fellow
nobody, I'd never think to stand in the way of folks attempting to improve
things.

The route is good. I've often thought the Red line itself should go a more
direct route down Sunset. The Vermont leg could be reused as a north/south
from Exposition to Griffith Park where traffic is also horrendous. The Purple
line uses the rest. Unlikely in my lifetime, however.

There are a few errors in the article as well. The red line turn where the map
shows it connecting is an open plaza in the middle of a three road
intersection: Hollywood-Prospect/Vermont/Sunset.

