Earlier quoted context omitted.
The $9.95 billion was for the initial bond issuance. The estimate on the ballot was $40 billion versus the current estimate of between $98.5 billion and $118 billion. Edit: correction from dragonwriter, via wikipedia [1]: "The cost of the initial San Francisco-to-Anaheim segment was originally estimated by the CHSRA to be $33 billion (2008) / $35.2 billion (2013), but a revised business plan released in November 2011…
Those numbers still seem absurd to me. $120 billion? France built the entire TGV network, about 2,000 km (1250 miles, ~2x the length of LA-SF, including numerous stations in urban areas) for around $20-30 billion. Maybe the U.S. should borrow some management practices from inefficient socialist "old Europe".
Hyperloop
471–480 of 983 posts
Re: Hyperloop
#472The final frontier is space, not San Fransisco.
(I am wide eyed and crazy about the Hyperloop)
Re: Hyperloop
#473* Structural requirements
The hyperloop has much less structural requirements than a traditional train. The reason is that its cars are separated, so it is 'less dense'. If a train goes over an overpass, the overpass has to be engineered to carry the weight of the rail and the train, whereas the hyperloop only has to handle the weight of the tube (30m between pylons at about 8 tons/m is 240 tons plus the negligible weight of the capsule).
The upshot of this is that the pylons can be much less invasive on the real-estate requirements. This is important because now you have more choices with regards to routes, which leads to less curvature and higher speeds. Looking at it from the reverse angle, High Speed Rail design suffered because the massive real-estate requirements imposed such a burden that route choices were compromised, and thus the projected travel time was lengthened.
* Tube manufacture.
It occurs to me that there already exists expertise in manufacturing elevated, highly reliable large diameter steel tubes hundreds of miles long. Oil pipelines. Moreover, these companies perhaps would be interested in diversifying their business away from oil.
* Development
High Speed Rail has issues, but they are political and financial, not technological. We're really just buying the technology from other countries. Much of the cost and the incredibly lengthy construction time for HSR is coming from building overpasses and the foundations for the rail, so far as I can tell.
But hyperloop is something that requires some development. This is a good thing because investors can sell that technology and get some return. It's difficult to attract private funding for HSR, but I can definitely see someone stepping forward to fund the development of the technology.
Pretty much once someone builds the hyperloop demonstration system, you'll know if you have a winner on your hands, but with HSR, you don't know if you'll be successful until the whole thing is built (and with a 2:30 travel time LA->SF, it's not going to be a slam dunk against air).
There are plenty opposed to HSR, but I see very few alternative solutions being proposed. This might be something those opposed to HSR jump onto, and it might get a lot of support quickly.
Re: Hyperloop
#474Earlier quoted context omitted.
Turn down the nastiness. It's totally non-obvious that this isn't overshadowed by the weight of the tube. And it does carry a motor with it, just not one that's responsible for initial acceleration or for large air resistances.
Sorry if you perceived that as "nasty". The motor that it carries with it is about 146 horsepower. That's less than a Kawasaki Ninja street bike. The General Electric E60 locomotives currently in use on Amtrak crank out 6,250 hp (4,660 kW) and weigh 423,000 lb (192,000 kilograms). The weight of the tube doesn't really enter into it.
My bet is that it's not significantly different to compare a light rail (subway-like) system to a hyperloop in terms of weight.
Re: Hyperloop
#475Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those numbers still seem absurd to me. $120 billion? France built the entire TGV network, about 2,000 km (1250 miles, ~2x the length of LA-SF, including numerous stations in urban areas) for around $20-30 billion. Maybe the U.S. should borrow some management practices from inefficient socialist "old Europe".
Uh, the number above is $70b and the TGV was built 30+ years ago so you could at least double that number based on inflation.
Re: Hyperloop
#476I think he should start a ticket pre-sale on kickstarter and see if he can be the first person to reach $6 billion for a project.
Re: Hyperloop
#477Earlier quoted context omitted.
He makes a point that by building on pylons he specifically doesn't need to do any of that.
He makes the point that he doesn't need to block 100 feet from each side of the track, as well as put barriers in place to prevent animal crossing and blocking farmers from getting to the other side of the farm, in the same way power lines today use space. That means he would need some non-farmable area around the track, yes, but that it wouldn't disrupt the farm like a normal HSR track would.
And after checking a map of the area and realizing farmland there is water limited, not space limited I withdraw my objection.
Re: Hyperloop
#478That capsule ( http://images.bwbx.io/cms/2013-08-12/0812_Hyperloop_605.jpg ) looks like a claustrophobic's nightmare. Otherwise very, very cool.
I'm not claustrophobic, but this image ever so slightly terrified me: http://i.imgur.com/lGD9bUP.png I have to wonder, would making the capsule the size of a small subway car completely destroy the economics of it?
Re: Hyperloop
#479Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, a pod would depart every 2 minutes or less, which puts about 23 miles between them.
I think it's actually more useful to think in terms of "2 minutes between them", as opposed to "23 miles". 2 minutes is all you have - to detect the situation, make a decision, then stop.
Re: Hyperloop
#480Earlier quoted context omitted.
but why to ask California State for subsidy? Why not to build it using private funds? I'd imagine that if this is economically sound idea there must be potential investors lining up to have their share in the Project? The estimated cost is $7B. Now, Musk just needs to make a few calls to his friends at Google, Amazon, etc. Can't these guys just form a company together just to build it? Maybe I'm naive... or maybe Mus…
For the same reason that Musk needed a huge, free government loan to get Tesla off the ground: without the government, he'd be less rich.