Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-12-2016, 09:51 AM
 
387 posts, read 511,725 times
Reputation: 305

Advertisements

For those who know the area well, there's a system called metrolink that connects Greater Los Angeles and San Diego pretty well but it only goes 50 MPH. If Hyperloop can take you from LA to San Francisco in 30 minutes then that would be revolutionary for connecting San Bernardino with LA, Irvine with LA, San Diego with LA and etc...

My point is that Hyperloop can actually rival automobiles and long commutes in Southern California. Metrolink is slower than driver with there's no traffic. Hyperloop would take you to the outskirts of an enormous mega-o-polis in minutes and connect outer job centers and secondary downtown cores like Long Beach and Pasadena.

Going from Union Station to Palm Springs will be faster than DTLA to Hollywood on the Meteo Redline one day, mark my words City Data. You will open up this historic thread in 20+ years from now!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-12-2016, 11:36 AM
 
2,546 posts, read 2,462,793 times
Reputation: 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by I Love Buildings View Post
For those who know the area well, there's a system called metrolink that connects Greater Los Angeles and San Diego pretty well but it only goes 50 MPH. If Hyperloop can take you from LA to San Francisco in 30 minutes then that would be revolutionary for connecting San Bernardino with LA, Irvine with LA, San Diego with LA and etc...

My point is that Hyperloop can actually rival automobiles and long commutes in Southern California. Metrolink is slower than driver with there's no traffic. Hyperloop would take you to the outskirts of an enormous mega-o-polis in minutes and connect outer job centers and secondary downtown cores like Long Beach and Pasadena.

Going from Union Station to Palm Springs will be faster than DTLA to Hollywood on the Meteo Redline one day, mark my words City Data. You will open up this historic thread in 20+ years from now!
Long-distance transit is an inefficient use of resources, regardless of mode, because the user density decreases with route length.

Meanwhile, despite a lot of cheerleading, Hyperloop is unproven as being a more cost-effective alternative to other modes of PT.

Part of the reason secondary CBDs aren't well connected is the nature of infrastructure projects: they're expensive and a challenge to the status quo, and see push-back from residents as a result. Hyperloop isn't magic, so it's not going to change that.

Finally, feeding sprawl, regardless of transit mode, has proven to be expensive and financially unsustainable. As metros expand outward, ever more capacity is required in the older rings to accommodate existing and new demand. At the same time, rapid outward expansion of metros leaves behind aging neighborhoods and expensive but underfunded obligations.

Hyperloop has a lot of promise, and could supersede HSR or some air service, but, as history has shown, the wonder of technology doesn't lead to a shiny, verdant utopia.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2016, 01:09 PM
 
391 posts, read 285,305 times
Reputation: 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
Long-distance transit is an inefficient use of resources, regardless of mode, because the user density decreases with route length.

Meanwhile, despite a lot of cheerleading, Hyperloop is unproven as being a more cost-effective alternative to other modes of PT.

Part of the reason secondary CBDs aren't well connected is the nature of infrastructure projects: they're expensive and a challenge to the status quo, and see push-back from residents as a result. Hyperloop isn't magic, so it's not going to change that.

Finally, feeding sprawl, regardless of transit mode, has proven to be expensive and financially unsustainable. As metros expand outward, ever more capacity is required in the older rings to accommodate existing and new demand. At the same time, rapid outward expansion of metros leaves behind aging neighborhoods and expensive but underfunded obligations.

Hyperloop has a lot of promise, and could supersede HSR or some air service, but, as history has shown, the wonder of technology doesn't lead to a shiny, verdant utopia.
We need to let the market decide. If people really want a hyperloop and if they really want to commute super long distances, then they should pay the full costs. The same should apply to any mode of transportation. Which is why I think the current system of infrastructure spending is flawed. The costs shouldn't be passed on to the general public.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2016, 01:26 PM
 
Location: The City
22,378 posts, read 38,888,203 times
Reputation: 7976
Quote:
Originally Posted by sstsunami55 View Post
We need to let the market decide. If people really want a hyperloop and if they really want to commute super long distances, then they should pay the full costs. The same should apply to any mode of transportation. Which is why I think the current system of infrastructure spending is flawed. The costs shouldn't be passed on to the general public.


I agree on the subsidizing long distance commute which is impractable and not scalable


though basically all infrastructure spending is passed on to the public roads, rail, sewer etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-12-2016, 08:17 PM
 
Location: Westwood, MA
5,037 posts, read 6,918,347 times
Reputation: 5961
I think the hyperloop cost estimates are orders of magnitude too low with current technology. Also, LA isn't generally considered the most sprawling metro--by some measures it's the densest metro.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-13-2016, 07:30 AM
 
5,546 posts, read 6,868,827 times
Reputation: 3826
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayrandom View Post
I think the hyperloop cost estimates are orders of magnitude too low with current technology. Also, LA isn't generally considered the most sprawling metro--by some measures it's the densest metro.
One of the things that will potentially make it more expensive is insuring a new technology. Liability for something that moves people at 400 MPH is bound to see scrutiny from insurance companies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-15-2016, 10:04 AM
 
4,019 posts, read 3,950,516 times
Reputation: 2938
Sure if money is no object for you and you can afford the $50 to a $100 ticket (or more) each way, every day.

Commuting such vast distances on a daily basis is not cheap.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:54 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top