Unfortunately, a lot of these efforts sound similar. And it looks like Musk has managed to do what he’s best at. Get even more government money directed towards his companies.
Unfortunately, a lot of these efforts sound similar. And it looks like Musk has managed to do what he’s best at. Get even more government money directed towards his companies.
I think hyperloop was primarily motivated by his hated of HSR - his many complaints well documented- basically for the insane cost he felt it would end up at - something better could be done or tried
Interstate I-69 costs more than CA HSR, has been plagued with problems, and has been under construction for more than 30 years and yet you don’t see the frothing negative coverage of that like you do CA HSR because in our country cars are normal and trains are the weird things we need to scrutinize to death.
This video is some nice coverage of this:
> The first Japanese Shinkansen train went over budget by 100%, but nobody remembers that anymore. Instead they talk about how wonderful the Shinkansen trains are.
The next generation National Space Telescope went over budget by a factor of twenty and fell behind schedule. That's another data point on the loss of American prestige. I couldn't watch the documentary at the repeating use of the word incompetence. One recent commercial resupply vessel failed to open one of two solar panels and the Lisa probe failed to lock on of the two solar panels.HSR is at 300% of original budget without even a credible schedule for completion of that original plan -or- source of funding.
Long-distance "high speed" rail is going nowhere in CA without constraints on air travel, especially short-hop flights, that includes taxation for environmental consequences. Nobody flying the Bay Area or Sacramento - L.A. corridor is going to spend 4X as much to spend double the time in transit.
I do wonder if for 100 billion we could have done automated bus or cargo lanes - or even just tried a few interesting ideas out.
The ballot summary was literally written by the ballot authors to avoid a more neutral party writing it
> Instead they talk about how wonderful the Shinkansen trains are.
At the time, Japan's HSR was the fastest in the world. California's would be the slowest in the world.Merely slapping on the name "high speed" doesn't make it so.
Can you elaborate on that? Because the train is designed to go 220mph, and if that's "the slowest in the world" then I don't really care. I also read that it needs to slow down to 110mph in some sections, but again that isn't necessarily an issue unless it has to do that all the time.
The French TVG route from Paris to Lyon is 243 miles and takes 1 hours and 59 minutes, an average of 121 mph. So if our train travels 220mph sometimes and 110mph sometimes and the French TGV averages 121 mph on longer routes, then I'd say we're in the ballpark of building French TGV style trains in California, which sounds great to me!
It sounds like this "slowest in the world" claim is another soundbite without context used to make the project look bad.
CA HSR (slowest HSR train in the world): Projected $40 b. Currently $105 b.
I think it will end north of $160 b. So that's 4x which further from 1.9x than 1.9x is from 1x.
I don't think they'll meet the other targets. But if you want to have fun, I'll have someone meet you in SF and we can make a deal: On the day CA HSR opens, I'll give you $80 (supposed LA/SF fare) times 20 and you can give me 20 LA/SF tickets over that first year. We can put it on longbets.org
Now it will travel slower within city limits in the Bay Area and Los Angeles as it shares a corridor with non-high speed trains, but that is not unheard of in other networks around the world.
As for the 2.5x over-budged, it is well known that the initial cost estimates were too low. The current rising of the estimate is largely due to inflation. This will keep happening while the project remains under-funded (which is precisely what the ill intentioned hyperloop idea was meant to do). I very much doubt that it will rise to 160 billion USD though (that is unless it remains unfunded for another decade or two).
The French TVG route from Paris to Lyon is 243 miles and takes 1 hours and 59 minutes, an average of 121 mph. So if our train travels 220mph sometimes and 110mph sometimes and the French TGV averages 121 mph on longer routes, then I'd say we're in the ballpark of building French TGV style trains in California, which sounds great to me!
It's weird seeing folks peddling fantasy land numbers here. Back in 2013 peer review board already said they were bogus, and it's only gotten a LOT worse.
For example, I think San Jose to SF have ALREADY been switched to shared tracks at ground level - tracks that are going to be mixed in with caltrain trips. Gilroy is going to switch to sharing some freight lines (100mph)? I'm sure down in Burbank / LA area similar give backs will occur.
This is all a major change from 220MPH which required elevated viaducts and 50 MILE (!!) turning circumferences! 220MPH actually WOULD be impressive but no chance of it. They've re-routed away from grapevine, they've added tons of stops. They've removed the dedicated trackways and rights of way (you CANNOT blast through downtown caltrain stops at 220MPH). They are going to in shared track situations (aka - Amtrak delays land for those like me who used to do amtrak).
All Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) have been approved between LA and SF with the exception of DTX between King and 4th to Transbay Transit Center in downtown San Francisco and between Palmdale to Burbank. The latter has Draft EIR/EIS that has a pretty clear strategy of maintaining 220 MPH (or close to it) mostly in tunnels under the San Gabriel mountains. So the strategy to reach the goal 2:40 is pretty sound^[1].
Now I would like to add that nothing here is a novel technology, there are plenty of build out systems worldwide with non-maglev trains maintaining a speed of 200 MPH or close to it, and even a handful of systems that maintain 220 MPH. The geography of the Central Valley even lends it self nicely to this with it’s flat surface and relatively straight lines between stations. The only novel thing here is maintaining a 220 MPH in several tunnels. However I don’t think this will be an impossible engineering challenge, and the EIR/EIS statements agree with that.
Also note that initial planning was for 200 MPH inside those tunnels, but after the preferred alternative of shared 110 MPH corridor between Gilroy and San José was approved, then it was decided to increase the speed in the tunnels to 220 MPH to make up the lost time. I think this was a good decision as you say, the challenges of building a fast corridor within city limits are probably greater then the challenges of going really fast inside tunnels. And as hinted the trains will only blast through caltrain stops at a max speed of 110 MPH, not 220 MPH.
I do want to emphasize the fact that the approved EIR/EIS has on the credibility of the project achieving its goals (this goes into concerns you raised in your other post). This means that interested parties had their chance to scrutinize every aspect of the plan, that includes engineering challenges as well as civic challenges (including right of way acquisition). I do agree that the property acquisition has proven difficult in the Central Valley (particularly around construction packages 1 and 2-3). This is in no small part down to the amount change orders and difficulty of utility relocations along the right of way. My understanding is that the authority has learned from these challenges and is now forcing its contractors to finish all the advanced design before they begin construction on that segment. This should significantly reduce the number of change orders which would make it easier to acquire the needed parcels.
---
1: There is a case for the DTX to actually slow things down (I very much doubt the trains will be traveling much faster then 50-60 MPH this last mile), but this will only be like a minute or two. So I will give you 2:42 hours is actually a likely final number.
However, I am somewhat curious about your certainty of the quality of this thing. I am willing to do the following on longbets.org:
- CA-HSR will not deliver regular service on IOS by current predicted 2029 date
- 10 years from now, budget estimates will be at least $160 b
We can pick terms at your convenience. I will commit a maximum of $10k to this through an intermediary who will meet you in San Francisco. If I lose, you get the $10k to a charity of your choice. If I win, you will donate to the charity of my choice 125 tickets (equal value at the CA-HSR-claimed $80/ticket) on CA-HSR for SF-LA.
10 years is a long time, and a lot can happen in that time. In 2017 there was an administration in the White House that was quite hostile to public infrastructure projects and withheld all the federal funding the previous administration had promised. For all we know there will be another administration like that in 2 or 6 years which does the same (or even more) to sabotage the project.
In 2018 a new CEO took over the project and took a hard policy against over promising. This is when we saw the initial operating segment being scaled back to only include Bakerfield to Merced by the end of this decade. Since then we’ve actually seen a lot truer projections which have come true. For example Construction Package 4 is almost complete and pretty much on time and on budget.
Project is still badly managed. This was in early 2021:
“It is beyond comprehension that as of this day, more than two thousand and six hundred calendar days after (official approval to start construction) that the authority has not obtained all of the right of way … ” wrote Tutor Perini Vice President of Operations Ghassan Ariqat to Garth Fernandez, the contracting chief at the state rail authority.
And that has only continued. They literally are asking Tutor to build on land they don't own, utility relocations have been going on for YEARS.
And the costs to now tunnel back to the coasts (long tunnels near seismic fault lines!). I don't think any plan is credible on that front. The rights of way as you get closer to SF and LA are going to be BRUTAL to get.
I think they already torqued the routing based on some kind of backroom deals.
Some NY Times excerpts below. I don't think the hyperloop folks were trying to any of these gimmicks, none of them served on boards that could do the horse trading.
“There were so many things that went wrong,” Mr. McNamara said. “SNCF was very angry. They told the state they were leaving for North Africa, which was less politically dysfunctional. They went to Morocco and helped them build a rail system." Morocco’s bullet train started service in 2018.
...
The horse-trading in this case involved an influential land developer and major campaign contributor from Los Angeles, Jerry Epstein.
Mr. Epstein, who died in 2019, was a developer in the seaside community of Marina del Rey who, along with other investors, was courting the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors for a 40-year lease extension on a huge residential, commercial and boat dock development.
Mr. Epstein was also a member of the rail authority board, and he became a strong backer of Mr. Antonovich’s proposal for a Mojave Desert diversion on the bullet train.
“The Palmdale route was borne of a deal between Epstein and Antonovich, absolutely,” said Art Bauer, the chief staff member on the State Senate Transportation Committee, speaking publicly on the matter for the first time.
“If I get my lease, you get my vote was the deal,” Mr. Bauer said. Though Mr. Epstein was only one member of the board, his lobbying of other board members proved critical, he said. “Epstein got the votes. The staff didn’t get the votes. The staff didn’t want to go that way.”
Can we cool it with the loaded language? What's wrong with "Musk said"?
Even at the time, in Musk's introduction he mentioned the massively delayed and over-budget (and slowest in the world and the most expensive per mile!) California HSR. There was never any attempt to hide his opposition, so it's no secret to 'admit.'
Musk was also open and honest about the fact that that he didn't know if Hyperloop would work, but that we should at least try to invent new and better technology over this worst-in-the-world status quo. I'm surprised to find disagreement on Hacker News of all places.
Do you have a link to him talking about the hyperloop X HSR cancellation discussion?
Because he sells cars, so reducing demand for them is contrary to his interests (even if you believe his PR that he only is in the car business to develop tech abd raise money for Mars, losing the income stream hurts those interests.)
> Do you have a link to him talking about the hyperloop X HSR cancellation discussion?
Its from communications with his biographer, and recorded in the biography:
https://twitter.com/parismarx/status/1167410460125097990?t=o...
And if we’re going to grant Musk’s stated motivations as true, he started Tesla to enable the transition to clean energy in transport, not just to make money for Mars. I could see why a criminally over budget and grossly over-schedule HSR project would not exactly be helpful to that aim.
> At the time, it seemed that Musk had dished out the Hyperloop proposal just to make the public and legislators rethink the high speed train. He didn't actually intend to build it. It was more that he wanted to show people that more creative ideas were out there for things that might actually solve problems and push the state forward. With any luck, the high speed rail would be canceled. Musk said as much to me during series of phone calls and emails leading up to the announcement. "Down the road, I might advise on a high speed rail project but right now I can't take my eye off the ball at either SpaceX or Tesla", he wrote.
> Its from communications with his biographer
You don't have to dig that deep. Musk mentioned his inspiration was the (most expensive per mile and slowest in the world) California HSR in... his very first interview after publishing the whitepaper.[1]He also mentioned it in the whitepaper (third paragraph).[2]
Musk was completely up-front with his disdain for that boondoggle. Can we not pretend like this was some deeply buried secret that had to 'leak' out?
[2] https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/blog_images/hyperl...
That it was proposed as an alternatige to CA HSR wasn’t the point, that it was proposed only to derail with no intent to build even if successful in derailing HSR was.
(That it was decidedly nonserious in substance as a proposal, aside from questions of intent or technical practicality, deriving most of its cost savings by fantastic assumptions about land acquisition costs and locating its terminals far from the population centers it would notionally serve is also worth keeping in mind.)