[dboshardy]

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.

[slg]

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.

[gamblor956]

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.

[slg]

>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.

[lnanek2]

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.

[danso]

> 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?

[eerwrq]

>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.

[m3kw9]

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