I don't really care if someone down-voted my "agreed" line.. I still agree.
Do people really think it will only cost 70 billion? Ha! When was the last time you heard of a municipal project meeting both budget and timeline?
Sure, if the Hyperloop was only few billion less than the proposed system it wouldn't make sense at all. But 10x less? Come on! Even if the Hyperloop went way over budget it would still be far far less than the ballpark figure of 70 billion.
The bond for this was put before the citizens of CA to vote on. They approved. Construction on terminals and land acquisition has begun. Seems like the time to rally against it has passed, no?
Massive projects always take time. And in that time, there will always be new technologies. The Space Shuttle used 1970s computing technology onboard, for example. Does it make sense to stop each time there's a new idea?
There really isn't an either/or approach here. The HSR currently under construction is designed to ferry people between moderately sized, moderately spaced cities at a moderate pace (the fact there's a monumental price involved in its construction is secondary). The hyperloop is designed to ferry people between two huge cities (if you count Northridge as being LA, anyway) at a very fast pace.
They may have spun the HSR as a superior option to flying or driving but it has applications, particularly if you live in places like Lancaster, Bakersfield, Merced, or Palo Alto. The hyperloop would do nothing for these intermediate communities.
That said, I definitely prefer the hyperloop if the only criterion is cost-effectiveness. Just because something shinier comes along (not even a test track yet) doesn't mean we should mothball the other thing.
As a frequently traveler from so cal to the bay area, I'm looking forward to an alternative to flying.
Right now what I'm actually watching is to see what happens to my local public transportation after high speed is built.
For example, in so cal, a major hub will now be Anaheim. In the region around Anaheim, good public transportation is not readily available.
What I'm hoping is as the trains links up, our local public transportation will get better to the hubs to travel up to the bay. I think something like this is important to try to get a system like BART in so cal.
6 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 29.0 ms ] threadDo people really think it will only cost 70 billion? Ha! When was the last time you heard of a municipal project meeting both budget and timeline?
Sure, if the Hyperloop was only few billion less than the proposed system it wouldn't make sense at all. But 10x less? Come on! Even if the Hyperloop went way over budget it would still be far far less than the ballpark figure of 70 billion.
Massive projects always take time. And in that time, there will always be new technologies. The Space Shuttle used 1970s computing technology onboard, for example. Does it make sense to stop each time there's a new idea?
They may have spun the HSR as a superior option to flying or driving but it has applications, particularly if you live in places like Lancaster, Bakersfield, Merced, or Palo Alto. The hyperloop would do nothing for these intermediate communities.
That said, I definitely prefer the hyperloop if the only criterion is cost-effectiveness. Just because something shinier comes along (not even a test track yet) doesn't mean we should mothball the other thing.
Right now what I'm actually watching is to see what happens to my local public transportation after high speed is built.
For example, in so cal, a major hub will now be Anaheim. In the region around Anaheim, good public transportation is not readily available.
What I'm hoping is as the trains links up, our local public transportation will get better to the hubs to travel up to the bay. I think something like this is important to try to get a system like BART in so cal.