4 ms·

Location is a primary reason why Musk can claim Hyperloop will be cheaper than high speed rail. As the paper correctly points out, right-of-way acquisition is v

Location is a primary reason why Musk can claim Hyperloop will be cheaper than high speed rail. As the paper correctly points out, right-of-way acquisition is very expensive. Bypassing major population centers is an easy way out of using eminent domain or expensive tunneling to build the system. The HSR project is required by Proposition 1A to pass through several population centers in the state and have a couple dozen stops. Notably, Hyperloop proposes to bypass all of the SF peninsula, San Jose, and Central Valley cities like Fresno and Bakersfield. HSR was politically viable because these regions were included in the project. Furthermore, the route and station map appears to hint that Hyperloop's stations are positioned away from city centers. For example, the "San Francisco" station appears to be located in the East Bay and the "Los Angeles" station is closer to Burbank. This is quite significant from an urban planning perspective as it means that short haul transit or car trips have to be accommodated for a majority of those people who want to use the system. It also adds to the total travel time needed to get from door to door for a greater number of people than does HSR. I'm not saying that Hyperloop is an inherently flawed project or that HSR is the perfect solution to the state's long-haul transportation needs. I just think that Musk is oversimplifying the situation.

enraged_camel 13y ago
>>I just think that Musk is oversimplifying the situation. Yes. After all, the project whitepaper has the word "alpha" in the title, and the authors specifically say they are open to constructive feedback. Have you thought about emailing them about your concerns? I think they are valid.
- blackjack48 13y ago
  I'm fairly certain they've realized this. My guess is that "Proposed SF-LA tube costs billions less than HSR" makes for a better headline.
joe_the_user 13y ago
For example, the "San Francisco" station appears to be located in the East Bay and the "Los Angeles" station is closer to Burbank. This is quite significant from an urban planning perspective as it means that short haul transit or car trips have to be accommodated for a majority of those people who want to use the system. It also adds to the total travel time needed to get from door to door for a greater number of people than does HSR. I'm not an urban planner but it seems to me that accommodating one station in each city's boondocks might actually be easier than accommodating transit to several stations in the most central areas. San Leandro has a lot more room to build than SF and a lot of people will be coming to the SF HSR station if it's built there (even with a San Jose station).
- waterlesscloud 13y ago
  Burbank isn't even the boondocks. It's just part of the San Fernando Valley sprawl. You literally couldn't tell where it ends and Los Angeles begins without the signs. Well, ok, and the nicer road surfaces. Having said that, the map actually looks like it terminates at the northern tip of the valley, where there are current no mass transit rail lines, so you'd be looking at buses or cars from there. Understandable as land acquisition costs skyrocket once it hits the valley. Still, it's a little misleading cost-wise for that reason.
melling 13y ago
That's correct. California waited almost 50 years to build a high-speed rail, and now the "that stuff only works in Europe" mentality is going to be painful to swallow. When I was a kid in the 1970's, I'd see shows with Californians bragging about how they loved their cars, and mass transit wasn't needed. It's really kind of embarrassing how Americans couldn't plan for the obvious. Unfortunately, It's not going to get any cheaper, and only becomes more difficult as the state becomes more crowded. If "Governor Moon Beam" had build his trains in the 1970's like he tried, we'd now be planning for a 300mph maglev by 2030, just like Japan.
kalleboo 13y ago
> For example, the "San Francisco" station appears to be located in the East Bay and the "Los Angeles" station is closer to Burbank. They did this a lot in Japan as well for the Shinkansen. There are a lot of Shin<City-Name> stations built expressly for the Shinkansen because the city center was too crowded. Once the train line is in, a new city blossoms up in the activity around the station.

enraged_camel 13y ago

>>I just think that Musk is oversimplifying the situation. Yes. After all, the project whitepaper has the word "alpha" in the title, and the authors specifically say they are open to constructive feedback. Have you thought about emailing them about your concerns? I think they are valid.

blackjack48 13y ago
I'm fairly certain they've realized this. My guess is that "Proposed SF-LA tube costs billions less than HSR" makes for a better headline.

joe_the_user 13y ago

For example, the "San Francisco" station appears to be located in the East Bay and the "Los Angeles" station is closer to Burbank. This is quite significant from an urban planning perspective as it means that short haul transit or car trips have to be accommodated for a majority of those people who want to use the system. It also adds to the total travel time needed to get from door to door for a greater number of people than does HSR. I'm not an urban planner but it seems to me that accommodating one station in each city's boondocks might actually be easier than accommodating transit to several stations in the most central areas. San Leandro has a lot more room to build than SF and a lot of people will be coming to the SF HSR station if it's built there (even with a San Jose station).

waterlesscloud 13y ago
Burbank isn't even the boondocks. It's just part of the San Fernando Valley sprawl. You literally couldn't tell where it ends and Los Angeles begins without the signs. Well, ok, and the nicer road surfaces. Having said that, the map actually looks like it terminates at the northern tip of the valley, where there are current no mass transit rail lines, so you'd be looking at buses or cars from there. Understandable as land acquisition costs skyrocket once it hits the valley. Still, it's a little misleading cost-wise for that reason.

melling 13y ago

That's correct. California waited almost 50 years to build a high-speed rail, and now the "that stuff only works in Europe" mentality is going to be painful to swallow. When I was a kid in the 1970's, I'd see shows with Californians bragging about how they loved their cars, and mass transit wasn't needed. It's really kind of embarrassing how Americans couldn't plan for the obvious. Unfortunately, It's not going to get any cheaper, and only becomes more difficult as the state becomes more crowded. If "Governor Moon Beam" had build his trains in the 1970's like he tried, we'd now be planning for a 300mph maglev by 2030, just like Japan.

kalleboo 13y ago

> For example, the "San Francisco" station appears to be located in the East Bay and the "Los Angeles" station is closer to Burbank. They did this a lot in Japan as well for the Shinkansen. There are a lot of Shin<City-Name> stations built expressly for the Shinkansen because the city center was too crowded. Once the train line is in, a new city blossoms up in the activity around the station.