5 ms·

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

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’s announcement didn’t say whether it would be expected to transfer technology." Has to be taken with a bit of caution as we've seen how this worked out in high speed rail: "China's early high-speed trains were imported or built under technology transfer agreements with foreign train-makers including Alstom, Siemens, Bombardier and Kawasaki Heavy Industries. Since the initial technological support, Chinese engineers have re-designed internal train components and built indigenous trains manufactured by the state-owned CRRC Corporation." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_China] You'll find that China now is battling for dominance in the global high speed rail market and the formerly leading European providers (Seimens, Altrom) and in trouble and may have to merge just to survive. "European rivals unite as CRRC threatens to corner train market " [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-27/alstom-siemens-forget-high-speed-rail-feud-amid-asian-onslaught https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-27/alstom-si...] [https://www.credit-suisse.com/corporate/en/articles/news-and-expertise/the-market-for-high-speed-trains-stays-the-course-201502.html https://www.credit-suisse.com/corporate/en/articles/news-and...]

ebikelaw 8y ago
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.
- lightrebar 8y ago
  >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.
  - ebikelaw 8y ago
    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.
    - khuey 8y ago
      Even the most optimistic published ridership projection for CAHSR is 200k riders per day, not 100k per hour.
      - chipotle_coyote 8y ago
        Well, to be fair, the estimated average annual daily traffic for the most traveled LA freeways isn't anywhere near 100K per hour, either. It's around ~400K vehicles per day, and assuming 1.5 average riders per vehicle, that's 600K people. So if 200K riders per day is the most optimistic published ridership projection for CAHSR, it's not at all a bad number. (Acela's daily ridership appears to be closer to 30K, though, so I would be really surprised if the CA system is that high.)
    - akozak 8y ago
      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...
  - greglindahl 8y ago
    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?
tomatotomato37 8y ago
>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?
_Schizotypy 8y ago
which part is the interesting technology? the train or the tunnel?
- JKCalhoun 8y ago
  "Hyper" in the name?

ebikelaw 8y ago

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.

lightrebar 8y ago
>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.
- ebikelaw 8y ago
  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.
  - khuey 8y ago
    Even the most optimistic published ridership projection for CAHSR is 200k riders per day, not 100k per hour.
    - chipotle_coyote 8y ago
      Well, to be fair, the estimated average annual daily traffic for the most traveled LA freeways isn't anywhere near 100K per hour, either. It's around ~400K vehicles per day, and assuming 1.5 average riders per vehicle, that's 600K people. So if 200K riders per day is the most optimistic published ridership projection for CAHSR, it's not at all a bad number. (Acela's daily ridership appears to be closer to 30K, though, so I would be really surprised if the CA system is that high.)
  - akozak 8y ago
    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...
- greglindahl 8y ago
  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?

tomatotomato37 8y ago

>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?

_Schizotypy 8y ago

which part is the interesting technology? the train or the tunnel?

JKCalhoun 8y ago
"Hyper" in the name?