23 ms·

"In the case of the Hyperloop, Musk started focusing on public transportation after he grew disenchanted with the plans for California’s high-speed rail system.

by aresant 13y ago

"In the case of the Hyperloop, Musk started focusing on public transportation after he grew disenchanted with the plans for California’s high-speed rail system." And who says that big government stifles entrepreneurial innovation? If ALL Musk does with the Hyperloop announcement is shed more light on the potential debacle that is to be our $70b+ high-speed rail in California, we owe him a debt of gratitude. PS - Direct link to the Hyperloop plans .PDF http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/hyperloop_alpha-20130812.pdf http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/hyperloop_alpha-201...

zeckalpha 13y ago
Comments on the whitepaper: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6201728 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6201728
melling 13y ago
So, we have "light shed" on the current "debacle" and neither system gets built. That's a win? HSR was first commerically available in 1964. Yes, it got really expensive waiting 50 years. I imagine it'll be even more expensive in another 20-30. California is going to get even more crowded.
- Shivetya 13y ago
  Not building the HSR that is envisioned is the win.
- tptacek 13y ago
  That's an argument in favor of a useful HSR system. But politics have resulted California's HSR system being deliberately pessimized; it may do more harm than good to the HSR cause, right?
  - slacka 13y ago
    “The man who moved a mountain was the one who began carrying away small stones.” -Chinese Proverb I've lived in China for over 3 years, and spend countless hours riding the HSR system. HSR combines the speed of a plane, with the cost and convenience of a regular bus. Traveling through the countryside of China at 380km/h made me feel like I was in the future. Coming home and seeing the the sad state of our infrastructure was a harsh reality check. Granted China has a massive manufacturing/mining complex and cheap labor. But if we hadn't squandered 5 Trillion on "War on Terror" and domestic spying, I'm sure we could kept our lead in infrastructure and still has some left over to boost education / R&D spending. In the past 20 years China's moved their mountain. Hopefully the hyperloop will help us to catch up.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      Again, the problem isn't that HSR is a bad idea.
    - jfb 13y ago
      I don't see Hyperloop's constituency; there really aren't that many people who want to commute to work in SF from LA and can pay the roundtrip Hyperloop cost who can't pay the $80 on Southwest from Burbank to SJC. The problem with CAHSR isn't the "HSR" part, it's California's utterly dysfunctional political system, and going faster and putting the track up on pylons isn't going to cut through that morass without a stronger group of people standing up and saying YES, WE NEED THIS.
      - dnautics 13y ago
        $20/trip amortized cost. So, probably a more correct ticket price is $50-$60.
        jfb 13y ago
        It seems to me that to really force the issue, you'd need to be talking an order of magnitude difference in cost. For $20 r/t, ears would perk up -- even people who aren't making a $1/yr salary could conceivably afford that. But $120?
        dnautics 13y ago
        you speak as though it needs to be run as a charity to be a game changer. I only mention that price point because that is just underneath the cost of flying, and that's how economics works. The operator will likely want to make as much profit as it can, while still sucking customers away from the airports. In the beginning, the operator will likely charge MORE than the airplanes, because the customer will be liable to be ok with a "novelty" premium, and it's in the interest of the operator to amortize the costs as quickly as possible to secure itself against (unforseeable) price competitions or unpredicted costs. At the price point I suggest, the operator is STILL effectively going to be making 150% margins, so there is a lot of room to lower the cost, but that just isn't going to happen unless there is a competitive pressure to keep lowering the price. If that's not "social justice" enough for you, then consider that at least the thing is going to be run nearly 100% if not better than 100% renewable.
- mhartl 13y ago
  So, we have "light shed" on the current "debacle" and neither system gets built. That's a win? Yes, preventing a debacle is a win.
- rayiner 13y ago
  California will get more crowded, but it will continue to be a disaster of urban planning, limiting the utility of HSR. It's mind boggling to me that the California HSR isn't being built from DC to Boston instead.
  - hyperbovine 13y ago
    Uhm, LA alone has more people than DC and Boston combined. Plus another 9 million living in the Bay Area. This is far and away the most obvious candidate for direct HSR in all of North America.
    - Locke1689 13y ago
      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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Megalopolis
      - hyperbovine 13y ago
        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.
        rayiner 13y ago
        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.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      The core cities on the DC BAL PHL NYC BOS route total 11.5 million, while LA + SF is only 4.5 million. Thats arguably the more important figure because the relative advsntage of rail diminishes if you have to drive in from the suburbs. Also, four of those five cities have well developed public transit systems centered around the rail station. Metro area total for the five cities is not including any other regions in the path is almost 40m versus about 20m for SF and LA.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- erichurkman 13y ago
  You misread, I think. He was stating that it is a common claim that government can stifle innovation, particularly in the transit sector (look at the trouble that Uber has to go through in every large market to fend off government-backed taxi monopolies). In this case, it appears that government failure may help spur innovation in a very costly sector.
- AaronFriel 13y ago
  > Market is wide open For a major infrastructure product? No, even if they could secure all the requisite permits and funding, which I can only imagine would be a nightmare to all but the wealthiest entrants, urban development would make actually putting the thing in the ground its own immense obstacle. The government uses the long-established practice of eminent domain to ensure that its projects may proceed unimpeded. Private industry doesn't have that, and we shouldn't consider giving it to them.
- spikels 13y ago
  If the California high speed rail project is completed (or even makes progress) it will likely stifle any similar projects for decades. Competing against government projects is hard enough because the goverment has the incentive (from voters, contractors, workers, unions) to "succeed" regardless of costs and has access to vast resources thru taxation as well as control of the rules of the game (laws, regulation). Project with high fixed cost such as this would be impossible because of the huge financial risks. Once the government establishes its presence it will either be uneconomic (Amtrak) or illegal (US Post Office) to compete.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > If the California high speed rail project is completed (or even makes progress) it will likely stifle any similar projects for decades. Building railroads (road networks, etc.) over non-trivial spans of land is practically impossible without active government support. Even if California doesn't build HSR, private efforts without government involvement would be pretty much impossible.
lmg643 13y ago
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 evaluation, then disregard as unrealistic a year from now. why would "big government" ignore this idea? fairly simple: risky and unproven, for a politician, in a career where risk is not related to upside; and probably more important is the ability to control $70bn in spending to private citizens and contractors - far more valuable to their careers (leading to donations and influence) than spending a smaller amount (a mere $7bn) on fewer contractors. For the most part, the hyperloop contractors would not be the same guys who have been donating to politicians for the past decade in support of the train. so yes, big government and the natural corruption of a large budget (donations->spending with favored constituents) will likely lead to the status quo - a ludicrously overpriced train. as far as political repercussions, california is not a two party state any more, so there's no one to capitalize on the idiocy of the folks in power. i guess, we reap what we sow.
- adventureartist 13y ago
  I wouldn't be so fast to make that declaration. Elon Musk, Tesla, and SpaceX are pretty influential players right now, and I don't think anyone reading this white paper are anything less than wide eyed at the possibility that the future of travel is written right here and we could build it, for cheaper than the current slow expensive system. Influential people and money people and politicians are all going to read this and say Sounds great. Elon Musk? I'm listening. 7 Billion? Go on. And scientists are going to chime in, and universities, and people always forget the global reactions. Momentum. I'm going to keep my faith that this idea has legs.
  - purplelobster 13y ago
    I hope you're right, but in reality most people haven't even heard of Elon Musk. I've had to explain to many highly educated people what he has done, what SpaceX is, what Tesla is etc. While he's been rather successful so far, he's not in the clear when it comes to either of his companies right now, he's not exactly at the Gates level of success yet. I'm rooting for him though, he has the potential to be one of the most influential people in a long time if things go well.
threeseed 13y ago
Can you please clarify why the high speed rail is likely to be a debacle ? It seems pretty clear that California needs it and generally HSR is a pretty sensible infrastructure investment.
- spikels 13y ago
  As currently envisioned CA HSR is likely to be more expensive and slower than current air travel. This is before the virtually certain cost overruns. To be competitively priced it would require large subsidies but still would be no faster than alternatives. That said like you I would love to see a superior alternative to the current situation but CA HSR is probably not it. Edit: added some references http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stories/ci_15746975 http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stories/ci_15746975 http://www.fresnobee.com/2013/08/01/3419259/high-speed-rail-board-adopts-policy.html http://www.fresnobee.com/2013/08/01/3419259/high-speed-rail-... http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-california-bullet-train-delays-20130812,0,3537563.story http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-califor...
  - thrownaway2424 13y ago
    Well, no. You just made that up. HSR is intended to meet a future need for transportation. The equivalent air transportation infrastructure to meet the same need is believed to cost at least $500bn, according to the environmental impact report. That's making the generous assumptions that this level of air travel is even possible without serious air traffic congestion problems, and the aviation fuel costs do not rise faster than general inflation. The main cost of CAHSR will be the opportunity cost of not having built it.
    - qohen 13y ago
      The main cost of CAHSR will be the opportunity cost of not having built it. I wonder: this is from an LA Weekly article from 2011 -- I remember it being an eye-opener when I read it back then [1]: The authority had projected that 41 million people annually would ride the train between Anaheim and San Francisco, for example. But currently only 12 million customers fly nonstop on the extremely busy air route between Los Angeles and San Francisco each year. The article goes on to say that Acela gets 3 million riders in the very dense east coast NY/Washington corridor but in less-dense California they were projecting a ridership around 10x of Acela's (!). The LA Weekly has had a bunch of articles about the project over the years criticizing everything from its cost to its leadership to its utility. If the picture they paint is mostly correct, perhaps the only way to win is not to play. And it's not just the LA Weekly -- a third party independent review came to similar conclusions apparently, as described in this LA Weekly article from Jan. 2012 [2]: On top of skepticism from the state auditor, inspector general and legislative analyst -- as well as university researchers, federal transportation experts and this very news blog -- a "peer review group" for the California High-Speed Rail Authority, formed for the sole purpose of independent review, has declared the project neither physically nor financially feasible at this time. The train's roster of supporters tells us everything we need to know: "The project has won major support from organized labor, some big-city mayors and many state lawmakers," reports the Los Angeles Times today. The article quotes the following from the report: "We cannot overemphasize the fact that moving ahead on the HSR project without credible sources of adequate funding, without a definitive business model, without a strategy to maximize the independent utility and value to the State, and without the appropriate management resources, represents an immense financial risk on the part of the state of California." [1] http://www.laweekly.com/2011-11-24/news/100-billion-bullet-train/full/ http://www.laweekly.com/2011-11-24/news/100-billion-bullet-t... [2] http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2012/01/california_bullet_train_not_feasible_says_peer_review_group_high-speed_rail.php http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2012/01/california_bullet...
LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
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 Musk for all his genius is focused on the Government grants too much instead of being focused on the investors in the business world. If this brings profit, everybody want to own piece of the pie, no?
- simonw 13y ago
  You need government backing to acquire the land.
  - LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
    Ah, that's boring. Look, we're talking about progress here, no Government burocrat should be able to stop us. Just $1B extra in "fees" would get us all the Government backing in the world we want. Unless we're not really serious about the whole thing and not really confident about the end result. Or just have Jobs resurrected. This way we save $1B on the "fees" and he'll talk the Government officials into this for free. They'll think they get the best deal in the world once Steve is done talking to them and the Distortion Field is permanently present in the Government heads.
    - saraid216 13y ago
      I'm pretty sure I've seen this plot in an animated series of something...
- milesskorpen 13y ago
  The proposal calls for the line to built alongside I-5, which requires government involvement.
  - btilly 13y ago
Aloisius 13y ago
If ALL Musk does with the Hyperloop announcement is shed more light on the potential debacle that is to be our $70b+ high-speed rail in California, we owe him a debt of gratitude. Really? Because it looks like this is an attempt to derail CA HSR using a proposal for an experimental technology that offers a fraction of what CA HSR does, but is potentially faster. CA HSR replaces/upgrades two metropolitan rail systems (Caltrain/Metrolink) in addition to connecting SF (as opposed to Oakland!) and LA, requires no R&D, is supposed to handle significantly greater ridership, has detailed cost estimates which include things like take into account electrification costs (because it does get cloudy), support facilities (because there is maintenance of these cars), administrative buildings (because someone has to run the system), bypassing/rebuilding overpasses (which are all over I-5) that are in the way and grading land.
- MikeCapone 13y ago
  > take into account electrification costs (because it does get cloudy) Did Musk say his Hyperloop wouldn't be tied to the grid?
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - Aloisius 13y ago
    Yes. It says it is self-powering using battery packs and solar.
    - kemiller 13y ago
      No, it specifically says it's tied to the grid for backup power. Section 4.3.
- jarek 13y ago
  > CA HSR replaces/upgrades two metropolitan rail systems (Caltrain/Metrolink) in addition to connecting SF (as opposed to Oakland!) and LA, requires no R&D, is supposed to handle significantly greater ridership, has detailed cost estimates which include things like take into account electrification costs (because it does get cloudy), support facilities (because there is maintenance of these cars), administrative buildings (because someone has to run the system), bypassing/rebuilding overpasses (which are all over I-5) that are in the way and grading land. Not to mention their estimates actually include going into downtown SF and LA, unlike Musk's $6B figure.
HoratioWarlock 13y ago
"If ALL Musk does with the Hyperloop announcement is shed more light on the potential debacle that is to be our $70b+ high-speed rail in California, we owe him a debt of gratitude." We would owe a debt of gratitude to a hypothetical public transport project for helping to obstruct or kill a real public transport project?
antitrust 13y ago
> And who says that big government stifles entrepreneurial innovation? "A brilliant exploration of new ideas in business argues that government is behind the boldest risks and biggest breakthroughs" http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/32ba9b92-efd4-11e2-a237-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2blGsoJgA http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/32ba9b92-efd4-11e2-a237-00144... I don't have much of an opinion on this topic, since it seems to me that any large concentration of money and smart people produces innovation (so do lone geniuses). But I thought this article was interesting.
mgaphysics 13y ago
This may very well be at the heart of his submission, especially since he is the first to point out that most of the real kinks have not been worked out. What do most of us in the general public really know about how projects like the high speed rail get on the ballot. A lot of people have their suspicions, but we have to ask ourselves if there was a competitive bid process to determine the best solution. I, for one, would have voted to throw money into future technologies over current rail solutions. Mostly because I shudder to think how much current tech will be old news in ten years when the high speed rail is completed (if at all). If we pursue the hyperloop or similar tech, and whether it can be completed or not, at least it would be a first of it's kind and on the cutting edge.

by aresant 13y ago

zeckalpha 13y ago

Comments on the whitepaper: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6201728 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6201728

melling 13y ago

So, we have "light shed" on the current "debacle" and neither system gets built. That's a win? HSR was first commerically available in 1964. Yes, it got really expensive waiting 50 years. I imagine it'll be even more expensive in another 20-30. California is going to get even more crowded.

Shivetya 13y ago
Not building the HSR that is envisioned is the win.
tptacek 13y ago
That's an argument in favor of a useful HSR system. But politics have resulted California's HSR system being deliberately pessimized; it may do more harm than good to the HSR cause, right?
- slacka 13y ago
  “The man who moved a mountain was the one who began carrying away small stones.” -Chinese Proverb I've lived in China for over 3 years, and spend countless hours riding the HSR system. HSR combines the speed of a plane, with the cost and convenience of a regular bus. Traveling through the countryside of China at 380km/h made me feel like I was in the future. Coming home and seeing the the sad state of our infrastructure was a harsh reality check. Granted China has a massive manufacturing/mining complex and cheap labor. But if we hadn't squandered 5 Trillion on "War on Terror" and domestic spying, I'm sure we could kept our lead in infrastructure and still has some left over to boost education / R&D spending. In the past 20 years China's moved their mountain. Hopefully the hyperloop will help us to catch up.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    Again, the problem isn't that HSR is a bad idea.
  - jfb 13y ago
    I don't see Hyperloop's constituency; there really aren't that many people who want to commute to work in SF from LA and can pay the roundtrip Hyperloop cost who can't pay the $80 on Southwest from Burbank to SJC. The problem with CAHSR isn't the "HSR" part, it's California's utterly dysfunctional political system, and going faster and putting the track up on pylons isn't going to cut through that morass without a stronger group of people standing up and saying YES, WE NEED THIS.
    - dnautics 13y ago
      $20/trip amortized cost. So, probably a more correct ticket price is $50-$60.
      - jfb 13y ago
        It seems to me that to really force the issue, you'd need to be talking an order of magnitude difference in cost. For $20 r/t, ears would perk up -- even people who aren't making a $1/yr salary could conceivably afford that. But $120?
        dnautics 13y ago
        you speak as though it needs to be run as a charity to be a game changer. I only mention that price point because that is just underneath the cost of flying, and that's how economics works. The operator will likely want to make as much profit as it can, while still sucking customers away from the airports. In the beginning, the operator will likely charge MORE than the airplanes, because the customer will be liable to be ok with a "novelty" premium, and it's in the interest of the operator to amortize the costs as quickly as possible to secure itself against (unforseeable) price competitions or unpredicted costs. At the price point I suggest, the operator is STILL effectively going to be making 150% margins, so there is a lot of room to lower the cost, but that just isn't going to happen unless there is a competitive pressure to keep lowering the price. If that's not "social justice" enough for you, then consider that at least the thing is going to be run nearly 100% if not better than 100% renewable.
mhartl 13y ago
So, we have "light shed" on the current "debacle" and neither system gets built. That's a win? Yes, preventing a debacle is a win.
rayiner 13y ago
California will get more crowded, but it will continue to be a disaster of urban planning, limiting the utility of HSR. It's mind boggling to me that the California HSR isn't being built from DC to Boston instead.
- hyperbovine 13y ago
  Uhm, LA alone has more people than DC and Boston combined. Plus another 9 million living in the Bay Area. This is far and away the most obvious candidate for direct HSR in all of North America.
  - Locke1689 13y ago
    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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Megalopolis
    - hyperbovine 13y ago
      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.
      - rayiner 13y ago
        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.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    The core cities on the DC BAL PHL NYC BOS route total 11.5 million, while LA + SF is only 4.5 million. Thats arguably the more important figure because the relative advsntage of rail diminishes if you have to drive in from the suburbs. Also, four of those five cities have well developed public transit systems centered around the rail station. Metro area total for the five cities is not including any other regions in the path is almost 40m versus about 20m for SF and LA.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

erichurkman 13y ago
You misread, I think. He was stating that it is a common claim that government can stifle innovation, particularly in the transit sector (look at the trouble that Uber has to go through in every large market to fend off government-backed taxi monopolies). In this case, it appears that government failure may help spur innovation in a very costly sector.
AaronFriel 13y ago
> Market is wide open For a major infrastructure product? No, even if they could secure all the requisite permits and funding, which I can only imagine would be a nightmare to all but the wealthiest entrants, urban development would make actually putting the thing in the ground its own immense obstacle. The government uses the long-established practice of eminent domain to ensure that its projects may proceed unimpeded. Private industry doesn't have that, and we shouldn't consider giving it to them.
spikels 13y ago
If the California high speed rail project is completed (or even makes progress) it will likely stifle any similar projects for decades. Competing against government projects is hard enough because the goverment has the incentive (from voters, contractors, workers, unions) to "succeed" regardless of costs and has access to vast resources thru taxation as well as control of the rules of the game (laws, regulation). Project with high fixed cost such as this would be impossible because of the huge financial risks. Once the government establishes its presence it will either be uneconomic (Amtrak) or illegal (US Post Office) to compete.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > If the California high speed rail project is completed (or even makes progress) it will likely stifle any similar projects for decades. Building railroads (road networks, etc.) over non-trivial spans of land is practically impossible without active government support. Even if California doesn't build HSR, private efforts without government involvement would be pretty much impossible.

lmg643 13y ago

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 evaluation, then disregard as unrealistic a year from now. why would "big government" ignore this idea? fairly simple: risky and unproven, for a politician, in a career where risk is not related to upside; and probably more important is the ability to control $70bn in spending to private citizens and contractors - far more valuable to their careers (leading to donations and influence) than spending a smaller amount (a mere $7bn) on fewer contractors. For the most part, the hyperloop contractors would not be the same guys who have been donating to politicians for the past decade in support of the train. so yes, big government and the natural corruption of a large budget (donations->spending with favored constituents) will likely lead to the status quo - a ludicrously overpriced train. as far as political repercussions, california is not a two party state any more, so there's no one to capitalize on the idiocy of the folks in power. i guess, we reap what we sow.

adventureartist 13y ago
I wouldn't be so fast to make that declaration. Elon Musk, Tesla, and SpaceX are pretty influential players right now, and I don't think anyone reading this white paper are anything less than wide eyed at the possibility that the future of travel is written right here and we could build it, for cheaper than the current slow expensive system. Influential people and money people and politicians are all going to read this and say Sounds great. Elon Musk? I'm listening. 7 Billion? Go on. And scientists are going to chime in, and universities, and people always forget the global reactions. Momentum. I'm going to keep my faith that this idea has legs.
- purplelobster 13y ago
  I hope you're right, but in reality most people haven't even heard of Elon Musk. I've had to explain to many highly educated people what he has done, what SpaceX is, what Tesla is etc. While he's been rather successful so far, he's not in the clear when it comes to either of his companies right now, he's not exactly at the Gates level of success yet. I'm rooting for him though, he has the potential to be one of the most influential people in a long time if things go well.

threeseed 13y ago

Can you please clarify why the high speed rail is likely to be a debacle ? It seems pretty clear that California needs it and generally HSR is a pretty sensible infrastructure investment.

spikels 13y ago
As currently envisioned CA HSR is likely to be more expensive and slower than current air travel. This is before the virtually certain cost overruns. To be competitively priced it would require large subsidies but still would be no faster than alternatives. That said like you I would love to see a superior alternative to the current situation but CA HSR is probably not it. Edit: added some references http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stories/ci_15746975 http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stories/ci_15746975 http://www.fresnobee.com/2013/08/01/3419259/high-speed-rail-board-adopts-policy.html http://www.fresnobee.com/2013/08/01/3419259/high-speed-rail-... http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-california-bullet-train-delays-20130812,0,3537563.story http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-califor...
- thrownaway2424 13y ago
  Well, no. You just made that up. HSR is intended to meet a future need for transportation. The equivalent air transportation infrastructure to meet the same need is believed to cost at least $500bn, according to the environmental impact report. That's making the generous assumptions that this level of air travel is even possible without serious air traffic congestion problems, and the aviation fuel costs do not rise faster than general inflation. The main cost of CAHSR will be the opportunity cost of not having built it.
  - qohen 13y ago
    The main cost of CAHSR will be the opportunity cost of not having built it. I wonder: this is from an LA Weekly article from 2011 -- I remember it being an eye-opener when I read it back then [1]: The authority had projected that 41 million people annually would ride the train between Anaheim and San Francisco, for example. But currently only 12 million customers fly nonstop on the extremely busy air route between Los Angeles and San Francisco each year. The article goes on to say that Acela gets 3 million riders in the very dense east coast NY/Washington corridor but in less-dense California they were projecting a ridership around 10x of Acela's (!). The LA Weekly has had a bunch of articles about the project over the years criticizing everything from its cost to its leadership to its utility. If the picture they paint is mostly correct, perhaps the only way to win is not to play. And it's not just the LA Weekly -- a third party independent review came to similar conclusions apparently, as described in this LA Weekly article from Jan. 2012 [2]: On top of skepticism from the state auditor, inspector general and legislative analyst -- as well as university researchers, federal transportation experts and this very news blog -- a "peer review group" for the California High-Speed Rail Authority, formed for the sole purpose of independent review, has declared the project neither physically nor financially feasible at this time. The train's roster of supporters tells us everything we need to know: "The project has won major support from organized labor, some big-city mayors and many state lawmakers," reports the Los Angeles Times today. The article quotes the following from the report: "We cannot overemphasize the fact that moving ahead on the HSR project without credible sources of adequate funding, without a definitive business model, without a strategy to maximize the independent utility and value to the State, and without the appropriate management resources, represents an immense financial risk on the part of the state of California." [1] http://www.laweekly.com/2011-11-24/news/100-billion-bullet-train/full/ http://www.laweekly.com/2011-11-24/news/100-billion-bullet-t... [2] http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2012/01/california_bullet_train_not_feasible_says_peer_review_group_high-speed_rail.php http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2012/01/california_bullet...

LekkoscPiwa 13y ago

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 Musk for all his genius is focused on the Government grants too much instead of being focused on the investors in the business world. If this brings profit, everybody want to own piece of the pie, no?

simonw 13y ago
You need government backing to acquire the land.
- LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
  Ah, that's boring. Look, we're talking about progress here, no Government burocrat should be able to stop us. Just $1B extra in "fees" would get us all the Government backing in the world we want. Unless we're not really serious about the whole thing and not really confident about the end result. Or just have Jobs resurrected. This way we save $1B on the "fees" and he'll talk the Government officials into this for free. They'll think they get the best deal in the world once Steve is done talking to them and the Distortion Field is permanently present in the Government heads.
  - saraid216 13y ago
    I'm pretty sure I've seen this plot in an animated series of something...
milesskorpen 13y ago
The proposal calls for the line to built alongside I-5, which requires government involvement.
- btilly 13y ago

Aloisius 13y ago

If ALL Musk does with the Hyperloop announcement is shed more light on the potential debacle that is to be our $70b+ high-speed rail in California, we owe him a debt of gratitude. Really? Because it looks like this is an attempt to derail CA HSR using a proposal for an experimental technology that offers a fraction of what CA HSR does, but is potentially faster. CA HSR replaces/upgrades two metropolitan rail systems (Caltrain/Metrolink) in addition to connecting SF (as opposed to Oakland!) and LA, requires no R&D, is supposed to handle significantly greater ridership, has detailed cost estimates which include things like take into account electrification costs (because it does get cloudy), support facilities (because there is maintenance of these cars), administrative buildings (because someone has to run the system), bypassing/rebuilding overpasses (which are all over I-5) that are in the way and grading land.

MikeCapone 13y ago
> take into account electrification costs (because it does get cloudy) Did Musk say his Hyperloop wouldn't be tied to the grid?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- Aloisius 13y ago
  Yes. It says it is self-powering using battery packs and solar.
  - kemiller 13y ago
    No, it specifically says it's tied to the grid for backup power. Section 4.3.
jarek 13y ago
> CA HSR replaces/upgrades two metropolitan rail systems (Caltrain/Metrolink) in addition to connecting SF (as opposed to Oakland!) and LA, requires no R&D, is supposed to handle significantly greater ridership, has detailed cost estimates which include things like take into account electrification costs (because it does get cloudy), support facilities (because there is maintenance of these cars), administrative buildings (because someone has to run the system), bypassing/rebuilding overpasses (which are all over I-5) that are in the way and grading land. Not to mention their estimates actually include going into downtown SF and LA, unlike Musk's $6B figure.

HoratioWarlock 13y ago

"If ALL Musk does with the Hyperloop announcement is shed more light on the potential debacle that is to be our $70b+ high-speed rail in California, we owe him a debt of gratitude." We would owe a debt of gratitude to a hypothetical public transport project for helping to obstruct or kill a real public transport project?

antitrust 13y ago

> And who says that big government stifles entrepreneurial innovation? "A brilliant exploration of new ideas in business argues that government is behind the boldest risks and biggest breakthroughs" http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/32ba9b92-efd4-11e2-a237-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2blGsoJgA http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/32ba9b92-efd4-11e2-a237-00144... I don't have much of an opinion on this topic, since it seems to me that any large concentration of money and smart people produces innovation (so do lone geniuses). But I thought this article was interesting.

mgaphysics 13y ago

This may very well be at the heart of his submission, especially since he is the first to point out that most of the real kinks have not been worked out. What do most of us in the general public really know about how projects like the high speed rail get on the ballot. A lot of people have their suspicions, but we have to ask ourselves if there was a competitive bid process to determine the best solution. I, for one, would have voted to throw money into future technologies over current rail solutions. Mostly because I shudder to think how much current tech will be old news in ten years when the high speed rail is completed (if at all). If we pursue the hyperloop or similar tech, and whether it can be completed or not, at least it would be a first of it's kind and on the cutting edge.