Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Seattle probably has the most major projects right now..
On the hyperloop mentioned above.. SpaceX can't even build rockets to re-supply the space station that won't explode; Elon is all hyped up(hence why he calls it a hyperloop). Article says it's his pipe dream..
For those of us that love both LA and SF, it would be fantastic if this proposal were realized. Confused why you of all people are posting it though. You can't seem to say anything good about LA without finishing your sentence with "but SF does it better". Why would you ever want to visit down here? It might be traumatic for you. All that lack of Fortune 500 companies down here and all <shivers>
SpaceX can't even build rockets to re-supply the space station that won't explode; Elon is all hyped up(hence why he calls it a hyperloop). Article says it's his pipe dream..
Space is hard, and SpaceX is doing just fine. All of the big players have had far worse accidents.
In regards to the hyperloop, you're right- it could turn to all be hot air. But they're going about it the right away- building an indoor proof-of-concept model down here in DTLA, and then building a 5-mile closed loop in the Central Valley, as the article mentions. I'll be thrilled if the concept is proven and if they move on to actually connecting LA to SF, or any other metro pair for that matter.
The only thing I had a problem with was how Musk initially came out of the gate with his white paper, claiming that this was a replacement for the California High Speed Rail project, and that CAHSR should be scuttled. That was incredibly irresponsible considering how far that project had come and what thin ice it was on at the time. Transportation technology is always changing, and there's always something better around the corner. If you scuttled current projects to wait for the next technology, nothing would ever get built. CAHSR will be finished in the 2020s, but even if Hyperloop was ready today it we won't see it connecting LA to SF until the 2030s. Better technology does not mean you get to skip the regulation red tape, skip acquiring land via eminent domain, and skip having to worry about funding. The very same factors making HSR take so long will make Hyperloop take a long time as well. Tech has nothing to do with it.
For those of us that love both LA and SF, it would be fantastic if this proposal were realized. Confused why you of all people are posting it though. You can't seem to say anything good about LA without finishing your sentence with "but SF does it better". Why would you ever want to visit down here? It might be traumatic for you. All that lack of Fortune 500 companies down here and all <shivers>
Because he wants the mere prospect of this proposal to undermine support for high speed rail. Which it could never do in application because, even if Hyperloop were to be built, its maximum capacity is a fraction of HRS, with no intermediate service. And the proposed alignment upon which the costs are based has Sylmar and Oakland as its glorious destination bookends, because, well, the Tehachapis and the Bay. So, Metrolink to Sylmar, Habi-trail vomitorium to Oakland, Bart to SF. Also skeptical about the motivations of an auto-maker with designs revolutionizing that industry, especially when this project would find a far more practical application from LA to Vegas.
Because he wants the mere prospect of this proposal to undermine support for high speed rail. Which it could never do in application because, even if Hyperloop were to be built, its maximum capacity is a fraction of HRS, with no intermediate service. And the proposed alignment upon which the costs are based has Sylmar and Oakland as its glorious destination bookends, because, well, the Tehachapis and the Bay. So, Metrolink to Sylmar, Habi-trail vomitorium to Oakland, Bart to SF. Also skeptical about the motivations of an auto-maker with designs revolutionizing that industry, especially when this project would find a far more practical application from LA to Vegas.
I hadnt really thought about that, but now that I think about it, I do LOVE how the Hyperloop is exposing the HSR for the ridiculous, wasteful boondoggle that it really is.
$7B in private funds vs $70B of taxpayer funds on a project that was only supposed to cost taxpayers $9B.
And you have the nerve to even compare the two?
What a joke.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DistrictDirt
For those of us that love both LA and SF, it would be fantastic if this proposal were realized. Confused why you of all people are posting it though. You can't seem to say anything good about LA without finishing your sentence with "but SF does it better". Why would you ever want to visit down here? It might be traumatic for you. All that lack of Fortune 500 companies down here and all <shivers>
Quote:
Originally Posted by NativeOrange
But given the destination would you ever really use it?
In regards to the hyperloop, you're right- it could turn to all be hot air. But they're going about it the right away- building an indoor proof-of-concept model down here in DTLA, and then building a 5-mile closed loop in the Central Valley, as the article mentions. I'll be thrilled if the concept is proven and if they move on to actually connecting LA to SF, or any other metro pair for that matter.
The only thing I had a problem with was how Musk initially came out of the gate with his white paper, claiming that this was a replacement for the California High Speed Rail project, and that CAHSR should be scuttled. That was incredibly irresponsible considering how far that project had come and what thin ice it was on at the time. Transportation technology is always changing, and there's always something better around the corner. If you scuttled current projects to wait for the next technology, nothing would ever get built. CAHSR will be finished in the 2020s, but even if Hyperloop was ready today it we won't see it connecting LA to SF until the 2030s. Better technology does not mean you get to skip the regulation red tape, skip acquiring land via eminent domain, and skip having to worry about funding. The very same factors making HSR take so long will make Hyperloop take a long time as well. Tech has nothing to do with it.
N1 launch explosion, 3 July 1969 One of the four N1 rockets that the Soviets intended to send to the moon exploded on the launch pad. The blast of the 1,496,000 lbs (678,574 kg) of liquid oxygen and kerosene released around 29 TJ energy, comparable to the Hiroshima blast. This was the largest non-nuclear man-made explosion in history.
There's only 2-3 big players, NASA, the Russians(maybe ESA too).
I'm quite sure you're used to it. Generally, we reap what we sow, and someone such as yourself who goes around acting like an insufferable blowhard is bound to rub people the wrong way get poked back a little for it
Because he wants the mere prospect of this proposal to undermine support for high speed rail. Which it could never do in application because, even if Hyperloop were to be built, its maximum capacity is a fraction of HRS, with no intermediate service. And the proposed alignment upon which the costs are based has Sylmar and Oakland as its glorious destination bookends, because, well, the Tehachapis and the Bay. So, Metrolink to Sylmar, Habi-trail vomitorium to Oakland, Bart to SF. Also skeptical about the motivations of an auto-maker with designs revolutionizing that industry, especially when this project would find a far more practical application from LA to Vegas.
I'm quite sure you're used to it. Generally, we reap what we sow, and someone such as yourself who goes around acting like an insufferable blowhard is bound to rub people the wrong way get poked back a little for it
Oh, okay. LOL.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DistrictDirt
Well said.
Wait, so you think spending $70B in taxpayer money to transport people between LA and SF in 1.5 hrs is "better"than spending $7B of private funding to transport people between LA and SF in 30 mins?
Wait, so you think spending $70B in taxpayer money to transport people between LA and SF in 1.5 hrs is "better"than spending $7B of private funding to transport people between LA and SF in 30 mins?
I would LOVE to hear the logic behind that.
If you insist on denying plain realties like carrying capacity and geography, I'm not treating you like an adult. Go back to counting how many Fortune 500 companies you can see from your house.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's pretty rad.
