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

Hyperloop

spacex.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

581–590 of 983 posts

Re: Hyperloop

#581

Post by qohen »

dragonwriter wrote: post #550
qohen wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not so sure it's a side-issue, in that the northeast corridor train routes don't just allow people in, say, NY to go to Washington, but also people in Philadelphia and Baltimore to go there as well, since those cities are on the Acela route. And, if your city is not on the Acela route, you may well be able, due to the area's density, to take a commuter rail or another train to get to a city that is on the Acela r…

> By contrast, the lack of density in CA would mean that aside from LA - SF (and a bit of traffic to and from Sacramento), you wouldn't likely have that sort of potential passenger-base. Actually, since California has a large total population, and its mostly concentrated in a few major urban areas, what that means is you have a natural constituency for high speed rail with few stops, spending more time at speed. LA (…

But why would lots more people start going from LA to SF or on any of the other routes? As a comment to your previous comment below asks[1], what would the economic gain be?

There might be a bit more interaction between LA's entertainment industry and the Bay Area's tech industry, but how many additional people would be travelling for this purpose?

I expect that, given that the northeast corridor comprises the nation's capitol, its financial capitol and its academic capitol (the latter two also being high-tech centers), one would expect movement between these places and would want high-speed transport.

I just don't see a similar dynamic operating in CA. Sacramento cannot compare to Washington, D.C. and LA and SF are pretty self-sufficient, as I expect San Diego is as well.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6203129

Re: Hyperloop

#582

Post by gojomo »

jellicle wrote: post #544
gojomo wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Density is destiny. Population densities: 407/km² England 256/km² UK 93/km² California 32/km² USA

But this comparison is wrong and meaningless. Certainly no one would build a high-speed, dense train network across, say, Nevada. But building one across the coastal part of California? Or across the NE United States? Why yes, that does make sense, and why yes, it is warranted by the densities in those areas. The fact that the U.S. also owns Alaska doesn't really matter. No one is arguing Alaska needs a high-speed ra…

I can believe that's a good plan for the US NE corridor... which already has usable (but improvable) Amtrak.

The California coastal cities (and connecting areas) are still pretty sparse, comparatively. And the marquee High Speed Rail project takes a big inland detour to the smaller interior cities, for political reasons. If ever finished, that will hurt its price/time attractiveness compared to flying.

Re: Hyperloop

#583

Post by kamjam »

Maxious wrote: post #570
dice wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also because fuck the TSA.

Too late: http://www.seattlepi.com/technology/businessinsider/article/... > If you don't want to be searched at the train station, you have the freedom to not ride the train.

I wonder what the security checkpoints would be like on the HyperLoop if it ever got built? They are saying capsules could depart 30 seconds apart. Imagine is there was an attack in on of them, with several others travelling at high speed just behind.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23677205

I'm sure there some contingency has been thought of, unfortunately it's just the world we live in these days :(

Re: Hyperloop

#584

Post by w1ntermute »

robomartin wrote: post #572

None of this is to say that Hyperloop is a bad idea. The idea sounds very interesting and I'd rather spend sixty billion building a Hyperloop --even if it fails-- than the ridiculous California high speed rail project. Cost is probably off by an order of magnitude, if not more. Why? Unions and other groups. Building anything in this country costs massively more (and takes significantly longer) than one could imagine…

> Cost is probably off by an order of magnitude, if not more. Why? Unions and other groups. Building anything in this country costs massively more (and takes significantly longer) than one could imagine because of our unions are not business symbiotic. The goal of union leadership is to extract as much as they can out of the businesses they infect, even if this means their demise.

Musk is in the car industry, one of the hardest hurt by unions and their ilk, so I would find it hard to believe that he didn't take that into account.

> Finally, it addresses the wrong market. I am not sure why people insist on applying trains to transporting people in the US. Sorry to resort to reality folks: If you build it they will NOT come. We do not have that culture and you will not inspire it simply by building trains.

Again, Musk is building and selling electric cars in a country that LOVES gas guzzlers. His track record would suggest that he knows what he's doing.

> Regrettably this is not a technological problem. It is far more complex than that.

I don't know why you think that this paper/concept only addresses technological issues, because it is clearly much more broad in scope than that.

Re: Hyperloop

#585

Post by jarek »

VladRussian2 wrote: post #562
dragonwriter wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the unions are primary driving force behind 200-300K/year gov employees pensions 200-300K/year (and higher) pensions are pretty much entirely executives who weren't union members, it has nothing to do with unions. e.g., the #1 highest: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/dec/27/opinion/la-oe-cole-v...

>executives who weren't union members, it has nothing to do with unions. http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=24566

Link describes one-time payouts upon retirement, not recurring pensions.

"Denson also earned $407,908 in total wages in 2011, according to city data, making him the highest paid city worker in 2011. Of this sum, $212,738 consisted of "cash out" pay, which accounts for such factors as vacations, holidays and unused sick pay. His regular salary was $195,169."

Re: Hyperloop

#586

Post by rayiner »

hyperbovine wrote: post #494
Locke1689 wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the Northeast corridor is the clear winner for HSR in the United States.[1] The difference is, we already have the Acela, so it just needs a speed upgrade. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Megalopolis

Unless you'd like to go from Boston to DC without making four stops along the way. In California you have two of the largest metropolitan areas in the country separated by 400 miles of nothing (with apologies to the Central Valley). HSR wins big when it goes fast without stopping, which is exactly the case out here.

NYC CSA is bigger than LA CSA, and DC CSA is bigger than "Bay Area" CSA. It seems weird, then, to argue it makes more sense to connect LA and SF just because in the northeast you can also hit two additional CSA's (Philadelphia and Boston, which are each about the size of the Bay Area), while you're at it.

Re: Hyperloop

#587

Post by qohen »

ewoodrich wrote: post #275
lmg643 wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting point that big government provoked the advancement of the hyperloop idea - counterintuitive idea, and clearly yes. but any idea like this will need government cooperation. The real test of big government will be how they respond to the hyperloop. magic response: "of course we may be wrong, we'll look into this immediately." and then they decide to build it. likely answer: praise, perhaps even an evaluatio…

It was approved by a ballot measure, so in this case it may be the "idiocy" (or will) of the voter. http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition...

It's interesting that in Jun 2012, voters might've voted differently if asked again [1]:

In fact, some of the highest resistance to the high-speed rail project that would run from L.A. to the Bay Area comes from Angelenos, according to new data released over the weekend by the USC Dornsife / Los Angeles Times Poll:

About 56 percent of would-be voters in L.A. County would say no to the train if allowed to vote on it again; 37 percent would be in favor. In San Francisco the train would win 47-45.

About 66 percent of Central Valley voters were opposed to the train, which would run through their farm region.

Statewide, if a re-vote on the train were allowed, 59 percent of would-be voters would say no; only 33 percent would give reaffirm it.

About 55 percent of statewide voters said they'd be down for a re-vote.

The article later goes on to state:

The biggest problem for this train is timing -- California is facing another crushing budget deficit and a stalling economic recovery. Dan Schnur, director of the poll:

    Californians aren't necessarily against the idea of high-speed rail. But they don't want to spend all that money right now, and they don't trust the state to make the trains run on time.

[1] http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2012/06/california_bullet...

Re: Hyperloop

#588

Post by revelation »

robomartin wrote: post #572

None of this is to say that Hyperloop is a bad idea. The idea sounds very interesting and I'd rather spend sixty billion building a Hyperloop --even if it fails-- than the ridiculous California high speed rail project. Cost is probably off by an order of magnitude, if not more. Why? Unions and other groups. Building anything in this country costs massively more (and takes significantly longer) than one could imagine…

Wow, can you not abuse this wonderful idea for a political forum on unions, of all things?
Post reply on HN