Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

L.A. Company Wins China Hyperloop Deal

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 79 posts

Re: L.A. Company Wins China Hyperloop Deal

#21

Post by ebikelaw »

lightrebar wrote: post #19
ebikelaw wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China probably sees it as being in their long-term interest to prop up American hyperloop companies so that Americans don't come to their senses and build trains. The longer we're distracted by hyperloops, on-demand taxi services, and self-driving cars the deeper our technological hole becomes.

>so that Americans don't come to their senses and build trains And how is that working out for California? Rail is by far the single most expensive form of transportation on a per-passenger basis.

You have to be kidding, right? How much do you think it would cost, per mile, to build roads capable of moving 100k people per hour? That's a 100-lane freeway. California High Speed Rail is being built because of all the alternatives studied it was, by a large margin, the cheapest. Freeways and airports are much more costly for the same capacity.

Re: L.A. Company Wins China Hyperloop Deal

#22

Post by seanmcdirmid »

Tongren county? That is like out in the middle of nowhere (well, near fenghuang in hunan) and is only known as a tourist destination for seeing Miao (Hmong) villagers. Strange.

Backpackers should visit this place, it’s like yangshuo/Lijiang before they became saturated.

Re: L.A. Company Wins China Hyperloop Deal

#23

Post by tomatotomato37 »

throw_awy_1 wrote: post #7

Very cool to see this technology progress. Will be interesting to track. China certainly has shown that it both can invest in and build public infrastructure at an amazing scale and pace. It's a little concerning that this isn't really a sale - it's a joint venture. From the article: "HyperloopTT will form a joint venture with the Tongren authorities, according to the Guizhou provincial government, though the company…

>though the company’s announcement didn’t say whether it would be expected to transfer technology

Isn't that kinda a given at this point when dealing with the Chinese state?

Re: L.A. Company Wins China Hyperloop Deal

#24

Post by meddlepal »

asdfman123 wrote: post #20

Wait, the US finally comes up with some new cool mass-transit technology and we're not even building it here? Shame.

We can't build any public infrastructure in the US anymore. Too complicated between environmental regs, NIMBYism, and corruption.

Re: L.A. Company Wins China Hyperloop Deal

#25

Post by khuey »

ebikelaw wrote: post #21
lightrebar wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>so that Americans don't come to their senses and build trains And how is that working out for California? Rail is by far the single most expensive form of transportation on a per-passenger basis.

You have to be kidding, right? How much do you think it would cost, per mile, to build roads capable of moving 100k people per hour? That's a 100-lane freeway. California High Speed Rail is being built because of all the alternatives studied it was, by a large margin, the cheapest. Freeways and airports are much more costly for the same capacity.

Even the most optimistic published ridership projection for CAHSR is 200k riders per day, not 100k per hour.

Re: L.A. Company Wins China Hyperloop Deal

#26

Post by akozak »

ebikelaw wrote: post #21
lightrebar wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>so that Americans don't come to their senses and build trains And how is that working out for California? Rail is by far the single most expensive form of transportation on a per-passenger basis.

You have to be kidding, right? How much do you think it would cost, per mile, to build roads capable of moving 100k people per hour? That's a 100-lane freeway. California High Speed Rail is being built because of all the alternatives studied it was, by a large margin, the cheapest. Freeways and airports are much more costly for the same capacity.

This is where citing studies would be helpful instead of arguing on instinct. But also remember: with cars you push a lot of the costs to riders (vehicle capex, maintenance, fuel) and there is interoperability with "last mile" infrastructure (city roads). With trains you build the entire infrastructure for the long haul, and then still end up relying on other modes of transport at the end. Imagine if in building a new freeway you also needed to buy all the cars on top of it...

Re: L.A. Company Wins China Hyperloop Deal

#27

Post by greglindahl »

lightrebar wrote: post #19
ebikelaw wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China probably sees it as being in their long-term interest to prop up American hyperloop companies so that Americans don't come to their senses and build trains. The longer we're distracted by hyperloops, on-demand taxi services, and self-driving cars the deeper our technological hole becomes.

>so that Americans don't come to their senses and build trains And how is that working out for California? Rail is by far the single most expensive form of transportation on a per-passenger basis.

In the Bay area, there's no space to expand the highways, but you can increase capacity on the rail lines. Caltrain can double capacity through electrification and level platform loading. Which one do you propose spending money on?

Re: L.A. Company Wins China Hyperloop Deal

#28

Post by chipotle_coyote »

lightrebar wrote: post #19
ebikelaw wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China probably sees it as being in their long-term interest to prop up American hyperloop companies so that Americans don't come to their senses and build trains. The longer we're distracted by hyperloops, on-demand taxi services, and self-driving cars the deeper our technological hole becomes.

>so that Americans don't come to their senses and build trains And how is that working out for California? Rail is by far the single most expensive form of transportation on a per-passenger basis.

Given how many people ride BART, Caltrain, and VTA light rail in my area -- and how proximity to a transit station has become a major selling point for residential development, both old and new -- at least around here it seems to be working out just fine, thanks!

While I presume you're taking a dig at the high speed rail project, it's worth remembering that that's not the whole of what "train service" means. It's also worth remembering that as of yet we don't really have a baseline for how the cost of longer-run train service compares to hyperloop service; as fun as it is to blame HSR's travails solely on being a government project, the reality is that there are very, very few private projects that are conducted on such a massive scale that we can point to and say "look, that was so much more efficient." Last but not least, there are good arguments against using "cost per passenger mile" as the be-all-end-all metric for transit, which you can find pretty easily if you're so inclined.

Re: L.A. Company Wins China Hyperloop Deal

#29

Post by golem14 »

ebikelaw wrote: post #15
golem14 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Care to back up your statement with sources or data ? I see these claims every now and then and never have seen a decent justification. Would be great to have that to have a more informed debate ...

The 2013 Hyperloop paper claims a capacity of 840 pax/hour under some pretty optimistic assumptions. I'm willing to grant them all these assumptions because this number is tiny and pathetic. A highway has a nominal capacity of 1800 vehicles per hour at a 2-second following distance, which works out to a capacity of at least 1800 people/hour and at most, in a dedicated bus lane, something more like 20000 per hour. Rai…

Thanks for the pointer: Here is another one, maybe more recent: https://ggwash.org/view/32078/musks-hyperloop-math-doesnt-ad...

Some good points, but I also think that the train system is overhyped here (comparing a single hyperloop v1.0 with a single terminal with a whole train station isn't as useful as it could be.) [Aside: Also, knowing the knots Palo Alto and other cites tie themselves in to deal with the high speed lane up to San Francisco, I'm not sure that HSR there will ever be successful, no matter how much $$$ and time is spent. Drives me nuts]

I also don't know how to compare highway costs - dunno what it would cost to increase one lane between SF and LA, plus adding a lane doesn't increase capacity linearly AFAIK.

Re: L.A. Company Wins China Hyperloop Deal

#30

Post by blackrock »

This move was very puzzling to me, in light of Trump's trade tactics. Especially, of his accusations that China "steals" American technology.

So, given this, why would any new American company, choose to enter into a 51/49 partnership with China? Where China has the majority share, and where the American company must share with their Chinese partner, all the system processes, techniques, and new technology of their product.

This is just adding fuel to the fire, and the resentment that Americans have of the Chinese people.

Here, the American company is willingly entering into such a business agreement. The Chinese side is not holding a gun to the American company's head.

For the Chinese side, they are investing a lot of money into this research project, to fund this hare-brained idea. So, there is a lot of risk on their part, that nothing will emerge from this.

The alternative, is that the American company can just choose not to do it. Don't accept the money. Go it alone. Don't enter the Chinese market. The rest of the world is a huge playground as it is.

Post reply on HN