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.
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.
Huh? This is silly. The request for an explanation was simple:
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?
But then, when people put politics and ego above pragmatism, we end up with unnecessary, impractical 70 billion dollar dinosaur projects that will be obsolete and outdated before they are even built.
While this tube transit is cool, I find it bizzare how excited people get about connecting far-flung cities with rapid transit, especially when our sprawled out, auto-dependent metro areas are the real places that demand better transit options. Connecting downtown LA to SF is fairly trivial when the vast majority of people still live auto-dependent lives in the suburbs. The unfortunate part about that is that our built environment is basically un-fixable. Either we try to shorehorn inadequate transit ideas into suburban spaces, or we just demolish the suburbs and redevelop using smarter urban planning.
Idk, sounds like doom and gloom to me.
Parking garages and rent a car lots solve these problems, plus the country has a pretty manageable population for its size. nothing horrible is going on that requires us to demolish suburbs.
Huh? This is silly. The request for an explanation was simple:
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
Talk about a no brainer.
I'm not writing this for you, because you will continue to ignore simple math. This has been reported exhaustively, yet you keep you head planted firmly where it is. Even if the project were built, it would have 10% max passenger capacity of HSR. And have Oakland and Sylmar as its terminus. And provide no intermediate service. There is no way you do not know this by now.
I just accused you of touting hyperloop solely because you see it a means to undermine HSR. You took the bait and admitted as much. In response, you didn't even bother to promote hyperloop as alternative or supplement to HSR, despite their patent dissimilarities. You went straight binary. Predictably.
I just accused you of touting hyperloop solely because you see it a means to undermine HSR. You took the bait and admitted as much. In response, you didn't even bother to promote hyperloop as alternative or supplement to HSR, despite their patent dissimilarities. You went straight binary. Predictably.
Haha you 'accused' me? Oh really? How laughable.
In fact, as I clearly stated, I wasnt even thinking about the high speed rail. Why am I spending so much time addressing tangential whining by Southern Californians? Is that like the normal way people down there are now? Good grief.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nslander
I'm not writing this for you, because you will continue to ignore simple math.
It's become clear to me that you have some sort of an axe to grind with the Hyperloop. Please explain why you oppose the development of better technology?
Are you some sort of state govt bureaucrat or contractor whose palms are being greased by taxpayers now being forced to pay up 8 times more money then what they voted for?
Otherwise, it seems I have a far better grasp of math than you do:
7B of private investment that achieves the same objective as 70B in taxpayer funds is a much better deal, no?
Yeah it's pretty dumb to claim that the hyperloop is more useful than high speed rail.
One of them is a pie-in the-sky fantasy using untested technology, that would be uncomfortable to ride due to the high G-forces, wouldn't even make it to central LA or SF, and would have no intermediate service and a much lower carrying capacity...while the other is using proven technology, with a much higher capacity, serves more locations, and is actually under construction.
Yeah it's pretty dumb to claim that the hyperloop is more useful than high speed rail.
One of them is a pie-in the-sky fantasy using untested technology, that would be uncomfortable to ride due to the high G-forces, wouldn't even make it to central LA or SF, and would have no intermediate service and a much lower carrying capacity...while the other is using proven technology, with a much higher capacity, serves more locations, and is actually under construction.
Never mind that 400 NASA engineers and some of the most talented and brilliant developers and scientists in the world are all working on it.
It's amazing to me how political leanings get in the way of progress.
In fact, as I clearly stated, I wasnt even thinking about the high speed rail. Why am I spending so much time addressing tangential whining by Southern Californians? Is that like the normal way people down there are now? Good grief.
It's become clear to me that you have some sort of an axe to grind with the Hyperloop. Please explain why you oppose the development of better technology?
Are you some sort of state govt bureaucrat or contractor whose palms are being greased by taxpayers now being forced to pay up 8 times more money then what they voted for?
Otherwise, it seems I have a far better grasp of math than you do:
7B of private investment that achieves the same objective as 70B in taxpayer funds is a much better deal, no?
If you think the project will actually be built for $7 billion, I have a bridge to sell you. If you actually read the white paper (I'm going to go out on a limb and say you haven't) you'd see how much hand waving was done to avoid things like eminent domain costs. The $7 billion number assumes that they will be able to run the tubes up the I-5 median for free for cripes sake. They also failed to factor in contingency buffer or the increase in material and labor costs in the future--both things with the $68 billion HSR proposal includes.
I'd love to see the thing built one day, and maybe if they figure out the capacity issue it could even be price competitive with HSR. But yeah, $7 billion budget? Not happening. If we're factoring in the decade(s) of R&D required to take it from concept to reality, I'd expect total costs to be anywhere between $100 billion to $1 trillion.
Last edited by DistrictDirt; 08-23-2015 at 02:37 AM..
you guys do realize there is a very serious proposal in Texas to build a high speed rail line for $10 billion with private financing, right? the project recently moved forward from feasibility studies to development planning.
why not just build a HSR line with private money instead of hoping for some hyper loop fantasy?
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.
