Hacker News Reader

Comment by slg | Hacker News Reader

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/

[2] - http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-downtown-str...

View on HN

The "hate" is because the Musk proposal would accommodate 2800 people per day, or less than 3% of the crowd of a typical game, most of which arrives within the space of the same 2-3 hours. (In comparison: the lowest-capacity trains in the LA Metro system can handle 2800 people in half an hour--about 4 trains--running on a regular schedule, or 6000+ running on special-event schedules.)

In other words, its a solution to absolutely nothing. In fact, it's worse than nothing: it's just Elon bloviating another half-assed idea that he takes no responsibility for.

It's not supposed to solve the stadium problem, it's a test track.

It's a test track that would interfere with the future construction of any public transportation running through the area, including lines that are currently in the early planning stages. That doesn't include it's impact on utility lines, water mains, or future housing construction (the Elonrail would only be 30 feet deep as currently planned, so no building over 3 stories could be built over it).

Elonrail responsibilities are to offer a good negotiation position for themselves. It's up to the city to counteroffer, say....:

1. Burying slightly deeper to accommodate larger building for the future. 2. Demolish the "test rail" after the "test" is proven to work. 3. Expand the rail after success is proven to accommodate a larger attendance

Elonrail/boring company is happy with the success of the test's outcome, the boring company will use this test as propaganda to further their goals and build larger projects, the boring company will not mind tearing down (or grandiosely upgrading) their tunnel with the new contracts it receives, and in the meantime: the region makes money from the project in the process.

The city has no responsibility to counteroffer, or even to waste any time or money considering the proposal. It's up to Elonrail to make a realistic proposal to the city if he hopes to get approval for his boondoggle.

in the meantime: the region makes money from the project in the process. Based on the submitted financial plan for the Elonrail, it would earn maybe $250,000 a year. It would several tens of millions just to tunnel, not including the hundreds of millions to build the many stations along the way that Elon has proposed, or the millions it would take to build all the carts.

>The city has no responsibility to counteroffer >gamblor956

Everyday lobbyists are making proposals to congressmen, founders are pitching to VCs, people applying for jobs and asking for salaries, and there is usually a middleground that these two parties can land at.

Perhaps the mechanism in like you suggest, simply to reject the offer OR perhaps more beneficially, the city should reject the offer and ask for what it wants at the same time, and play the negotiation game.

edit: I read your profile, and I get you're a lawyer, and that you're technically right that it has no `legal` responsibility to counter ... That mentality doesn't get either party anywhere.

You are starting from the position that the Elonrail is a good thing, or a practical thing, or even a feasible thing.

I start from the position that it is none of the above. It is a boondoggle, like the hyperloop. It solves nothing and the proposal as presented only raises numerous problems that Elonrail fails to address. Which is pretty typical of Musk these days: present a shiny new idea, not fully thought out, as if it were something innovative, take credit for it, and then let other people do the work of actually figuring out whether it's even possible to implement.

Elon Musk has zero clue how public transport works and doesn't seem the least bit interested in figuring it out.

Put a train in there, not one car at a time.

How are these signalled? Are they all "autonomous"? Whatever it is, it sounds like it's ripe for disaster if operating at scale.

Being stuck in a subway train tunnel in a large subway car can be a miserable experience. Being stuck in a tiny pod is undoubtedly worse. It's like being stuck in an elevator you can't stand up in.

Sounds like an MVP to me.

I don’t see a V in this proposal.

It's more like the "least he could do", as in "why even bother".

I agree, it's not more outlandish, but a subway system is a proven and much cheaper alternative.

> If people want to try to fix traffic themselves and all they need from the public is permission, why should we stop them?

Public safety, regulation/oversight of construction in city limits. It's also IMHO naive to think Musk will fund this himself and not ask the city to foot the bill.

Musks methods are unproven, but there it’s moderate risk high reward situation he is creating.

A subway might be a more complete answer, but there is no Musk character throwing private money at the city hoping to build a subway. Also like I mentioned previously, there is little political capital to expand the subway. The subway system as it currently stands is simply ignored by a huge percentage of the population and adding a small extension to Dodgers Stadium wouldn't change that. So yes, this won't help that much, but we shouldn't make the perfect the enemy of the good.

Musk is currently claiming that he will not need public funds for this. I don't have any reason not to take him at his word. My opinion of this project would change if there would need to be any non-trivial public investments. However if this is a serious concern of the city, there are obviously ways to structure the contract so the city doesn't find themselves on the hook if Musk changes his mind.

Also like I mentioned previously, there is little political capital to expand the subway

Stop spreading FUD. LA literally just passed Measure M a few years ago to...vastly increase its rail network. Metro is currently in the process of extending 3 lines, building a new line, an airport PeopleMover, and multiple multi-line connecting stations. This doesn't include the nearly 100 miles of additional rail planned for construction over the next 2 decades.

The subway system as it currently stands is simply ignored by a huge percentage of the population and adding a small extension to Dodgers Stadium wouldn't change that.

Completely false. About 20-25% of the Dodgers crowd takes Metro to the game.

Musk is currently claiming that he will not need public funds for this. I don't have any reason not to take him at his word.

Elon has made numerous misrepresentations about nearly all of his businesses, his personal life, and other people...just in the last year. At this point, anything he said should be viewed with suspicion unless he can provide corroborating evidence of its veracity.

As someone who lives in LA and used to live in SF, I do feel it's true everyone I know ignores the Metro and just drives/Uber's/whatever. I'm probably in a privileged position, though.

It was also quite noticeable back in SF that way more people used the BART than normal for Oakland Raiders games and even, to a less degree, AT&T Stadium games. So games actually can get the rich people to take poor people's transport.

>Stop spreading FUD...

Measure M was addressing a higher level transportation ordinance. You can't use that as proof of support specifically for the subway system. Either way, I have not seen any proposal for expanding the subway to Dodgers Stadium outside the one from the mid 2000s that has not progressed (AFAIK).

>Completely false. About 20-25% of the Dodgers crowd takes Metro to the game.

That ridership number you supplied for Dodgers games is legitimately surprising. I had not heard that usage has ticked up that much. Do you have a source on that? I would obviously admit I am wrong if there are legitimately 10k+ people regularly travelling to Dodger games using Metro.

>Elon has made numerous misrepresentations...

I am not going to debate this. Musk's word is good enough for me to entertain his proposal, but it should never be good enough for the city to simply accept without any contingencies. Contracts exist for a reason.

> Musk is currently claiming that he will not need public funds for this. I don't have any reason not to take him at his word.

Musk has made numerous claims (e.g. Autopilot, Model 3 production, secured financing for taking Tesla private, that a cave rescuer is a "pedo") that have turned out to be wrong, even though being wrong would be materially and legally damaging to him.

What damages does Musk face if he's wrong about his project not needing public assistance?

>Musk is currently claiming that he will not need public funds for this. I don't have any reason not to take him at his word.

He just lied about having "funding secured" to take tesla private, like, a few days ago.

> If people want to try to fix traffic themselves and all they need from the public is permission, why should we stop them?

They need more than permission, they need the government to give them exclusive use of property (including, if necessary, acquiring property for them by way of eminent domain.)

Don't forget that it also effectively prevents any other similar solution: "The result is that the tunnel would have negative value to the region. As a transportation service based on how Musk wishes to construct and operate it, it has practically no value. But in the event of upzoning in West Los Angeles, the tunnel would complicate any possibility of rail under Sunset connecting Hollywood with Downtown. Metro may even need to acquire and demolish Musk's tunnel, or else dig under the tunnel, which would complicate intermediate stations in Silver Lake and Echo Park."

There is already rail connecting Hollywood to downtown that doesn't see particularly high usage. I am not sure why this specific real estate needs to be reserved for a second Hollywood to downtown subway line that as far as I am aware has not made any progress in the decade or two since it was initially proposed.

The Red Line, which you are referring to, is one of the most used subway lines in the US. Combined with the Purple Line to Koreatown, the two are #9 of the list of most-used rail systems in the US...and that doesn't include the light rail systems (i.e., above-ground rails) of the Expo, Gold, and Blue lines.

Los Angeles is the 2nd biggest city in the US. Being number 9 on the list of most used railways in the US isn't exactly a huge accomplishment when much smaller cities like Boston appear above them on the list.

Elon's plan is very expensive and clearly won't help, if you're even mildly numerate (2400 whole people per hour at full capacity). It's also farcical to pretend this will happen without enormous piles of public money, both implicit in terms of right of way, and explicit via enormous subsidies. The proposed revenues are a dollar per ride! This thing is an enormous cash fire.

clearly won't help, if you're even mildly numerate (2400 whole people per hour at full capacity)

So you're defining "help" == "completely solve." Would you say that a program offering discounts to people who carpool to Dodger's stadium would not help unless it completely solved the problem? Would a gondola going to Dodger's stadium "not help?"

It's also farcical to pretend this will happen without enormous piles of public money, both implicit in terms of right of way, and explicit via enormous subsidies.

The whole point of the boring company is to get the tunnel boring infrastructure out of the government-laden, subsidy-heavy mode of operation. It's the same overall strategy as was behind SpaceX.

If our standard is every little bit helps, then how about a midfield helipad? Could probably deliver a dozen spectators and double as pregame entertainment.

Clearly "every little bit helps" is as much of a straw-man as "must completely solve." Replacing a part of the transport for 2500 people, in precisely the part of the trip that is most likely to be congested, using electric vehicles certainly sounds like it would be of more benefit with much reduced carbon footprint and noise pollution than a midfield helipad.

Plus, if you charge enough and supply champagne and caviar, people from the right social class will enjoy it very much.

Take the proceeds from that, and put it to good use.

You could transport 2500 people for a few thousand bucks using a few buses and setting aside a game-day express lane for those buses. And the best part is, if the East Hollywood/Silverlake trips are popular, you can scale quickly and easily--and even on the fly--by simply using more buses.

This is in fact what they already do for Dodgers fans taking public transportation to the game from Union Station.

> The whole point of the boring company is to get the tunnel boring infrastructure out of the government-laden, subsidy-heavy mode of operation.

... I'm not sure I agree. Given that The Boring Company has spent most of its effort on selling its PRT (er, sorry, "Loop", since PRT is apparently so 20th century) technology, and has basically made no attempts to bid for any actual tunneling contracts, it's all about trying to make a new (well, new attempt at a never-successful old) transit mode and not about tunneling at all.

it's all about trying to make a new (well, new attempt at a never-successful old) transit mode and not about tunneling at all.

[Citation Needed]

The first two-thirds of that sentence was the "citation" for the final third.

Then that is the part that needs citation.

The Boring Company's own FAQ is a pretty damning citation. There is about one question on tunneling [1]. Most of the page is itself devoted to discussing Loop, and even then, it doesn't actually ask any hard questions, such as how they handle capacity or routing, given that the evidence of earlier such systems (e.g., automated baggage handling; PRT systems) is "this stuff doesn't work well."

[1] And there's quite a lot of facts on the page that are misleading or just plain wrong, particularly in the one question on tunneling.

You're claiming to know the intentions of the Boring Company based on the ordering and number of Frequently Asked Questions? Sorry, but that's not very compelling.

And there's quite a lot of facts on the page that are misleading or just plain wrong, particularly in the one question on tunneling.

That sounds actually substantive. Why not comment on those?

> You're claiming to know the intentions of the Boring Company based on the ordering and number of Frequently Asked Questions? Sorry, but that's not very compelling.

No, I'm claiming to know it based on what they're actually working on, a passing interest in civil engineering projects that's deep enough that I actually read the Environment Impact Statements and construction plans, particularly with regards to mass transit systems. I might not be an accomplished entrepreneur, but you're not going to sell shiny new tunneling technology with a mass transit system that utterly fails at the "mass" part. Elon Musk has also pretty much said on record (well, on Twitter) that he hates trains because he doesn't want to have to be in a crowd of people, which is a good sign that he's interested in seeing the not-mass transit aspect as the major focus and not the tunneling improvements.

> That sounds actually substantive. Why not comment on those?

I have commented on them at least three times in this HN three alone. If you can't figure out what those were, here they are:

1. Digging deeper is not a panacea. You have heat dissipation, drainage issues, and especially vertical (people) circulation problems.

2. No one builds tunnels for $1 billion/mi. The tunneling costs do not drive the cost inflation to $1 billion/mi.

3. Smaller diameter bores are nowhere near as much a cost savings as Musk suggests they are. TFA even points this out.

There's lots of other stuff, which keeps getting brought up every time there's a thread on this topic. You'd have to have pretty big blinders if you follow the technology to miss the discussions of how many things just don't add up.

A gondola has hardware that can be removed in the future, possibly even sold to another user. A tunnel would be very permanent and possibly cause problems in the future. As the article stated, it is very hard to expand the size of a tunnel once it has be constructed. This limited size means that it can not be upgraded in any meaningful way. Ultimately, for a plan like this to work, the tunnel should be constructed as large as possible so that there is room for future growth.

That's exactly the sort of logic that traditionally inflates tunnel infrastructure projects.

How is it that the logic is flawed? There are real-world examples of undersized tunnels limited the growth of a subway network. London was specifically called out in the article.

How is it that the logic is flawed?

It's the exact opposite of YAGNI. It's attempting to build the ultimate end-all be-all up front. No wonder tunnel building is expensive, and all the projects wind up huge and bloated.

There are real-world examples of undersized tunnels limited the growth of a subway network. London was specifically called out in the article.

If a larger tunnel to Dodger stadium is needed, why couldn't it be dug below, with the old tunnel used to carry infrastructure for the new tunnel? That seems a solvable technical feat.

It sounds like you're trying to bring a software mindset to an infrastructure problem, which is somewhat laudable, but ultimately misguided in this instance.

In this instance, as others have pointed out, it's already clear that the Tunnel Elon is proposing doesn't carry enough passengers to make a dent in the transportation load for the stadium.

It sounds like you're trying to bring a software mindset to an infrastructure problem

It's more that I'm pointing out that the tunneling industry is stuck in a "tunnels are big, expensive, end-all be-all projects" which creates a self-fulfilling prophecy, precluding the development of radically cheaper tunneling technologies.

I am not familiar with the soil under LA but in many cases it gets much more expensive to "stack" tunnels. The construction of the upper tunnel relies on the stability of the soils underneath for support. Constructing a tunnel underneath may require the lower tunnel to be much stronger to support the loads. Why not just build the tunnel larger in the first place?

If Musk wants to construct these tunnels, that if fine but I feel that the City of LA would be foolish to allow him to do it without ensure that the tunnels can be used for larger vehicles if the "skate" concept proves to be inadequate. This would come at little extra expense and would still allow Musk to test his concept but have a contingency plan if it does not work.

> It's the exact opposite of YAGNI. It's attempting to build the ultimate end-all be-all up front. No wonder tunnel building is expensive, and all the projects wind up huge and bloated.

The cost of making an incremental change to software is not appreciably different from incorporating the change in the first place. The same does not hold true for infrastructure; even a minor retrofit can end up being very expensive, especially if there was no provisioning for it. Look at the impact of the Rosslyn station on the DC Metro: the only practical solution to the capacity issue is to bore new Blue Line tunnels and a new underground station, which can't be had for less than ~$1 billion. Provisioning to solve this at the original system construction would have cost somewhere in the region of $300 million or so (there are other, much cheaper alternatives that can't be built with the current track geometry).

By saving $300 million, you're ultimately setting yourself to spend 3 times that much in the future.

> If a larger tunnel to Dodger stadium is needed, why couldn't it be dug below, with the old tunnel used to carry infrastructure for the new tunnel? That seems a solvable technical feat.

Undermining a tunnel is the easiest way to do this, but it requires closing the old tunnel to do. Digging a new tunnel immediately underneath an old tunnel is going to introduce different stresses on the old tunnel, which is going to be more of an issue if you're boring a parallel tunnel rather than a cross tunnel. Furthermore, all of the access points now have to go deeper to reach the new tunnel, which could introduce passenger circulation issues. It will also have passenger circulation issues during construction.

Maintaining access to existing infrastructure during construction is complex after all.

Digging a new tunnel immediately underneath an old tunnel is going to introduce different stresses on the old tunnel

So then dig the new tunnel beside it.

Maintaining access to existing infrastructure during construction is complex after all.

For many complex industries, there is innovation and cost reduction. Digging larger parallel tunnels is something that the industry should be making easier and cheaper, leveraging the existing infrastructure. The mindset that "tunneling is expensive" is exactly the kind of self-fulfilling prophecy which prevents such progress.

> So then dig the new tunnel beside it.

What if there are things in the way? Like... building foundations. Stations. Access to the first tunnel. Lots of stuff that might be reasonably expected to grow up in close proximity to a tunnel.

Digging two tunnels at once is going to be much cheaper and easier than digging one tunnel and then digging the second tunnel much later, especially if you never planned to dig the second tunnel.

What if there are things in the way? Like... building foundations.

Then dig deeper. Given the strategies talked about by Elon Musk, the original Boring Company tunnel would have been dug to avoid those in the first place.

Stations. Access to the first tunnel.

Those wouldn't have right of way problems.

Digging two tunnels at once is going to be much cheaper and easier than digging one tunnel and then digging the second tunnel much later, especially if you never planned to dig the second tunnel.

Therefore, the logic is to dig everything you might imagine you might need, ever. Therefore tunnels are always going to be super expensive and elaborate.

> Therefore, the logic is to dig everything you might imagine you might need, ever. Therefore tunnels are always going to be super expensive and elaborate.

Not everything you might imagine you might need, ever. But everything you can reasonably forecast to need in the next 50 years.

The thing about tunnels: tunnels aren't expensive, stations are (particularly the station mezzanines and the pedestrian circulation to reach them). A two-track subway line is only going to be ~30% more expensive than a one-track line, and a four-track line only ~50-60% more than a two-track line. And it doesn't take a genius to figure out which one you need: one-track lines are never a good idea, and four-track lines are only necessary for trunks in megacities. You can look at your demand and figure out if you're going to need to go to 8- or 10-car trains as your maximum train length. Not to mention that you also (as a city) have the ability to steer development to increase demand on your subway networks via tools like zoning.

Insisting that you have to build only to minimal, current demand scenarios is being penny-wise and pound-foolish.

Logic is logic.

Not all logic is founded on a near optimal cost/benefit premise.

elon musk said that he plans for higher capacity by building multiple tunnels. There can be up to 30 tunnels stacked on top of each other, a few feet apart in depth, or more likely stacked around both vertically and horizontally.

Angelenos? Why not just "Angels"?

That would be almost as confusing as "Tacoman", the demonym for a resident of Tacoma.

this is hilarious

Because the name of the city is "Los Angeles" not "The Angels".

> Los Angeles (US: /lɔːs ˈændʒələs/); Spanish for "The Angels";

Wait until they figure out what “The La Brea Tar Pits” translates to...

You missed my point.

We use the Spanish form for the city name, so we also use the Spanish form to refer to the people who live there.

It is derived from the spanish word Angeleño.

Oooh, makes sense, thanks.

> 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.

Pretty much.

For a while he could do no wrong.

Now he can do no right.

Typical overhype/crash cycle.

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

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.

Is it schadenfreude to hate hubris?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com