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

Hyperloop One to shut down

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 490 posts

Re: Hyperloop One to shut down

#81

Post by renewiltord »

eesmith wrote: post #77
renewiltord wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, I see. Let me clarify. The amount of spending until it opens is at least $8 billion. It will then cost more through its usable life. Therefore, you're right. It will cost tens of billions once maintenance is included. As a comparison for how much benefit will be gained, presently 12000 people board transit at the 4th and King station every day. I suppose it's my fault for having underestimated the total cost of t…

Minor correction which changes nothing - at least $7.5 billion. Your source says "$729 million of the cost increase is attributed to a request that the federal government credit the costs of a train box at the terminal that has already been built."

Thank you for the correction! I'll remember to use the revised number in future.

Re: Hyperloop One to shut down

#82

Post by Turing_Machine »

stuaxo wrote: post #6

It served its purpose of diverting attention (and so funding) from high speed rail, which is a threat to his business of selling cars. https://twitter.com/parismarx/status/1571628269555826688?lan...

The estimated cost of the Merced to Bakersfield segment (the only one currently being built, and two locations between which no one outside of a Merle Haggard song has ever wanted to go) has ballooned to $33 billion, more than the initial projected cost for the entire system. The full system is now projected to cost $128 billion, nearly 4x what it was supposed to cost.

It's not "Musk" who's responsible for that.

Edit: link.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-03-11/new-cost...

Re: Hyperloop One to shut down

#83

Post by Mountain_Skies »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #53

As I recall Musk stated publicly that the only reason he pushed Hyperloop was to derail the California High Speed Rail initiative. In that regard it was somewhat successful. [1] “He admitted to his biographer that the reason the Hyperloop was announced—even though he had no intention of pursuing it—was to try to disrupt the California high-speed rail project” -- https://gizmodo.com/silicon-valleys-transportation-fail…

That might have been his intent but it appears California didn't need the help in failing to produce high speed rail in a timely manner at anywhere near the estimated cost.

Re: Hyperloop One to shut down

#85

Post by eesmith »

talldatethrow wrote: post #22
stuaxo wrote: post #6

It served its purpose of diverting attention (and so funding) from high speed rail, which is a threat to his business of selling cars. https://twitter.com/parismarx/status/1571628269555826688?lan...

I'm from Europe originally, and visit often. And now in California. You could make Highspeed rail FREE and I'm not sure I would take it. I might. Maybe. As soon as it costs what gas costs to get to LA from SF ($100 round trip max, so usually $50-33 a person), there is NOOOO way I am ever taking it. Heck, I still need a way to get around once I get there.. so how would the train ever really work for anyone? Now I'm re…

You left out depreciation, maintenance, and insurance. AAA gives ownership costs at about 75 cents/mile. https://exchange.aaa.com/automotive/aaas-your-driving-costs/

With some 383 miles between San Francisco and Los Angeles that's $287 one-way or $575 round-trip. You'll need to add parking fees on top of that.

For some people it's totally worth it to bring their own car. That's also why some people drive over flying.

But there are also many people who would gladly take a free high-speed train service between those cities, just like there are many who currently fly.

For that matter, I've flown into San Francisco for work and not needed a personal vehicle at all.

Re: Hyperloop One to shut down

#86

Post by _ea1k »

corethree wrote: post #24
talldatethrow wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm from Europe originally, and visit often. And now in California. You could make Highspeed rail FREE and I'm not sure I would take it. I might. Maybe. As soon as it costs what gas costs to get to LA from SF ($100 round trip max, so usually $50-33 a person), there is NOOOO way I am ever taking it. Heck, I still need a way to get around once I get there.. so how would the train ever really work for anyone? Now I'm re…

Why would you not take it when it's free? Makes zero sense.

You still have to get around when you get to the destination. For a lot of places, that will mean renting a car.

Even free can be more expensive than driving.

Re: Hyperloop One to shut down

#87

Post by talldatethrow »

ryukafalz wrote: post #58
talldatethrow wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's a way worse experience than taking my own car. Maybe if they paid me I'd take it. If they paid enough.

As someone living in the Northeast and having often made train trips of similar length (Philadelphia -> Boston), I don't see how. If I'm driving and need to stop to use the bathroom, eat something, or so on I'm setting myself back time-wise. Plus I have to stay sitting down the whole time and have to stay focused on the road for hours. If I take the train, I can get up, stretch my legs, grab some food, and I'll still…

I suppose all this hinges on if you want to have a car when you get to the destination. If not, then sure take the train if flying doesn't work.

But I usually want to have a car. So I'll be driving until it really doesn't make sense for me.

Most people I know spend crazy money for a car, if you compare to how little they could spend. Thus it seems many people are ok shelling out thousands of dollars a year for a cooler or more comfortable car. I have a feeling if high speed rail costs the same as taking their car, they are for sure going to take their car.

Re: Hyperloop One to shut down

#88

Post by _ea1k »

stuaxo wrote: post #6

It served its purpose of diverting attention (and so funding) from high speed rail, which is a threat to his business of selling cars. https://twitter.com/parismarx/status/1571628269555826688?lan...

That gives Musk way too much credit.

Re: Hyperloop One to shut down

#89

Post by grecy »

croes wrote: post #38
grecy wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> which is a threat to his business of selling cars With 40,000kms of high speed rail [1] (by far the most in the world), China must then have very few electric vehicles. In reality they are the world leader. [2] [1] https://www.statista.com/topics/7534/high-speed-rail-in-chin... [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-07-17/how-china...

40,000km are too few for a country of the size of China, nit to mention over 1 billion people.

Good thing they built another 2,900km in 2023, and have no intention of letting up!

https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews/news-wire/china-buil...

Re: Hyperloop One to shut down

#90

Post by talldatethrow »

eesmith wrote: post #85
talldatethrow wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm from Europe originally, and visit often. And now in California. You could make Highspeed rail FREE and I'm not sure I would take it. I might. Maybe. As soon as it costs what gas costs to get to LA from SF ($100 round trip max, so usually $50-33 a person), there is NOOOO way I am ever taking it. Heck, I still need a way to get around once I get there.. so how would the train ever really work for anyone? Now I'm re…

You left out depreciation, maintenance, and insurance. AAA gives ownership costs at about 75 cents/mile. https://exchange.aaa.com/automotive/aaas-your-driving-costs/ With some 383 miles between San Francisco and Los Angeles that's $287 one-way or $575 round-trip. You'll need to add parking fees on top of that. For some people it's totally worth it to bring their own car. That's also why some people drive over flying.…

Do you really think that when a Honda Civic reaches 200k miles, $150k were spent on it?

And that includes overall age depreciation which I wouldn't count, because most people that consider taking high speed rail would have a car anyway that's already depreciating.

Post reply on HN