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

What Will the Federal Government do with Hyperloop?

consumersresearch.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 46 posts

Re: What Will the Federal Government do with Hyperloop?

#21

Post by pbreit »

anigbrowl wrote: post #19
anologwintermut wrote: post #11

The standard answer to articles that ask a question in the title is no. Or in this case nothing. One of the reason's California's proposed high speed railway was so expensive was the politics involved in picking the route. It's also the same problem Amtrak has. The northeast corridor would make money, but the routs going west don't and are kept do to congressional pressure. The hyperloop's cost comparisons don't fact…

The hyperloop's cost comparisons don't factor that in at all The budget summary at the end suggested $2.5 billion for land acquisition etc, which made me think it's not a serious proposal.

Why is that? Nearly all the land is already government-owned. And much of the rest would be rented, not acquired.

Re: What Will the Federal Government do with Hyperloop?

#22

Post by anigbrowl »

_delirium wrote: post #6

This is a pretty thin hook to hang a political rant on. Summary of the article: there is a gasoline tax, and there are aviation taxes. Therefore, taxes will stifle the hyperloop! Government bureaucrats! More likely answer to the headline question: they will do the same thing with the hyperloop as with the maglev (ignore it).

Not a real consumer research site either - operator obviously bought up a defunct brand and relaunched it: http://consumersresearch.org/?p=6

Re: What Will the Federal Government do with Hyperloop?

#23

Post by anologwintermut »

anigbrowl wrote: post #19
anologwintermut wrote: post #11

The standard answer to articles that ask a question in the title is no. Or in this case nothing. One of the reason's California's proposed high speed railway was so expensive was the politics involved in picking the route. It's also the same problem Amtrak has. The northeast corridor would make money, but the routs going west don't and are kept do to congressional pressure. The hyperloop's cost comparisons don't fact…

The hyperloop's cost comparisons don't factor that in at all The budget summary at the end suggested $2.5 billion for land acquisition etc, which made me think it's not a serious proposal.

Even if $2.5 billion for land acquisition is realistic (if you build most of it next to I5 and need a 10ft wide swath of land, it might be), the route would never be approved by the california legislature. A large part of the problem with infrastructure costs is politics, not engineering.

Re: What Will the Federal Government do with Hyperloop?

#24

Post by pbreit »

acqq wrote: post #15
cma wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He said there could be branch stations, and he also gave the example of someone having an emergency right at takeoff in a normal plane, and it taking just as long to get clearance to land, turn around, land, and taxi to a gate.

In the plane people can stand up, help the one being sick ("is there a doctor on the plane? please come to the seat 34E" -- the steward is already there etc) bring him water, take him to the toilet. It's a big space. Nothing like that here -- everybody is trapped in the tube not able to leave the chair. Imagine even worse case: fire in the pod. People burn having to remain unmovable in the seats. Again imagine the pu…

Instead of just crapping all over something that is in very, very early stages of merely ideation, maybe we could switch to positive intent and try to come up with some comparables? Having just returned from Disneyland, I nominate the Finding Nemo submarines which offer a nearly identical experience for 15-20 minutes (and are pitched as "fun" no less).

Re: What Will the Federal Government do with Hyperloop?

#25

Post by anigbrowl »

pbreit wrote: post #21
anigbrowl wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The hyperloop's cost comparisons don't factor that in at all The budget summary at the end suggested $2.5 billion for land acquisition etc, which made me think it's not a serious proposal.

Why is that? Nearly all the land is already government-owned. And much of the rest would be rented, not acquired.

Don't be naive. You start erecting structures all along the I-5, everyone whose lands borders is it is going to come up with a reason why it's negatively impacting them during the environmental impact review.

Re: What Will the Federal Government do with Hyperloop?

#26

Post by anigbrowl »

anologwintermut wrote: post #23
anigbrowl wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The hyperloop's cost comparisons don't factor that in at all The budget summary at the end suggested $2.5 billion for land acquisition etc, which made me think it's not a serious proposal.

Even if $2.5 billion for land acquisition is realistic (if you build most of it next to I5 and need a 10ft wide swath of land, it might be), the route would never be approved by the california legislature. A large part of the problem with infrastructure costs is politics, not engineering.

It'd be more likely to be approved with only 2 endpoints, since the logical thing then would be to make the route as short as possible. OTOH HSR's route through the Central Valley is partly dictated by the availability of funding from the federal government for development in that part of the state; if it was purely up to CA I think it would just run along the coastline.

Re: What Will the Federal Government do with Hyperloop?

#28

Post by escoz »

acqq wrote: post #8
angersock wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's aimed at commuter traffic--as somebody who has routinely made a backpack's worth of clothing last a week on trips, I also don't think that the luggage is that much of an issue. The bathroom critique is again silly--it's a thirty minute trip; if you can't hold it that long, you probably need to repeat preschool.

Has it occurred to you that not everybody has perfect health all the time? You can't actually expect that you wouldn't get sick the first minute after you enter the tube. Then imagine yourself having to remain there next 29 minutes and die! This would happen. A lot. Then imagine who'd use that cleverness after the first such case and after every next. I'd rather say "it's aimed at astronauts" than "commuters." Astron…

Same thing can technically be said about a HSR or a plane. You can't stop the train/plane because somebody got sick, and although you have a bathroom, and although the extra space helps, the resources you have inside the car/plane are very scarce anyway. Yet, very few people die inside those things nowadays.

Re: What Will the Federal Government do with Hyperloop?

#29

Post by [deleted] »

anologwintermut wrote: post #11

The standard answer to articles that ask a question in the title is no. Or in this case nothing. One of the reason's California's proposed high speed railway was so expensive was the politics involved in picking the route. It's also the same problem Amtrak has. The northeast corridor would make money, but the routs going west don't and are kept do to congressional pressure. The hyperloop's cost comparisons don't fact…

[deleted]

Re: What Will the Federal Government do with Hyperloop?

#30

Post by _delirium »

anigbrowl wrote: post #22
_delirium wrote: post #6

This is a pretty thin hook to hang a political rant on. Summary of the article: there is a gasoline tax, and there are aviation taxes. Therefore, taxes will stifle the hyperloop! Government bureaucrats! More likely answer to the headline question: they will do the same thing with the hyperloop as with the maglev (ignore it).

Not a real consumer research site either - operator obviously bought up a defunct brand and relaunched it: http://consumersresearch.org/?p=6

Interesting; quite long-lasting zombie. An organization founded in 1929, but which basically died in 1936, and is somehow still being resurrected today!

Seems it was the precursor of Consumer Reports, but CR was founded when the majority of the staff left in 1936 and founded a new publication. In the 77 years since, it seems the old organization's main achievement is still... that place everyone left to found Consumer Reports.

Post reply on HN