If this is, as it sounds, a new public transport system, it surprises me a little that he would prefer to develop it in the US.
Attitudes towards public transport in general seem more favourable in the EU, Japan, China and South Korea.
Perhaps I'm missing something, but I imagine getting such a system built in the EU (for example) would be easier than the US. Then again, Musk has been building a reputation with law-makers in the US for some time, so that might count for a lot.
I would think a big motivation is that he personally wants to be able to go from LA to SF in 30mins. He probably spends a lot of his time flying around the US
I think US's opinions about public transportation is based on rational comparison. Taking the bus takes more time than taking a car, and is a less desirable environment. Our train system is optimized for freight, and has no cost or time benefit over just driving.
Countries which have high amounts of public transportation tend to have higher gas prices and population density. It becomes more cost and time effective in that case to take public transportation.
If this hyper-tube system takes off, it could really be a game changer. Even with a high cost, the transportation speed is really desirable, especially if you don't need to go through the routine that you need to go through at airports before you even get on the plane. If the cost becomes comparable or cheaper than airplanes, then it becomes cheaper and more convenient to take the hyper tube than driving or flying. Americans understand the language of time and money, and that would change their opinion very quickly.
Rational comparison or desirability of environments would take into account the likelihood of an hour on a decent bus allowing you to get more done (or more sleep) than 45 minutes of focusing attention on the car in front of you...
Hmm, then I've never been on a "decent" bus (used buses in LA and a little in Boston). They never seemed like good environments for work. In LA particularly, even if it weren't for all the idiots playing music on their earphones that's clearly audible from over a yard away, there's these stupid TV programs running. And for most of the trips I needed them for (before I could drive), they took 3 times as long as driving. We make decisions based on the actual options, not what "decent" options would be. Driving is definitely a better deal.
I was speaking more about longer distances than just 45 minutes. The initial proposal seems to be more about longer distance traveling over daily commutes. My experience with bus trips is them being 30% to 60% longer travel times for more money than it would cost in gas if driving a car.
I feel like Musk is positioning not as an alternative to HSR. He's positioning this to shoot even one level higher - this can unseat air travel.
After all, at a reported 1000km/h speed, it would be faster than a Boeing 737 or Airbus A320, the typical modern transcontinental aircrafts around the world.
Why tackle a meager market of medium-distance routes (realistic for HSR) when you can kill off airlines entirely?
The talk about LA-SF in half an hour sounds only like phase 1 of a much more ambitious plan.
I think he specifically wants California to build this instead of wasting $100bn on the HSR project. I'm sure he'll be open to building hyperloops elsewhere as well.
If he can stop California from lighting that $100bn on fire chasing HSR from Bakersfield to Fresno, then this will all be worth it. I voted against all of those propositions, but I'd have reconsidered if you told me Musk would be the one playing with the money.
> If he can stop California from lighting that $100bn on fire chasing HSR from Bakersfield to Fresno,
$100 billion is an approximation of an old estimate of the total system cost (which includes HSR with terminii in the San Diego, LA, Sacramento, and San Francisco, and a upgrades to a number of existing intercity and commuter rail systems that would connect to HSR) -- the most recent estimate is much lower at $68.4 billion. The Bakersfield to Fresno line is a ~$3 billion first construction segment which will initially be used to improve exisiting Central Valley heavy rail passenger service and which will eventually be part of the HSR initial operating segment from Merced to Palmdale.
No one is lighting $100 billion on fire chasing HSR from Bakersfield to Fresno.
Lighting 3 billion on fire is still pretty bad no?!?
I started having doubts about this project when I found out technicals were skeptical, but when the bombshell dropped that it would have cost half if SNCF built it on the I-5 corridor[1] I decided there's no way I could continue to support it. It's just a device for politicians to bring pork to their districts, and anyway at this point it seems doubtful that it will ever actually exist.
> Lighting 3 billion on fire is still pretty bad no?!?
Building something with immediate utility to improving existing service is lighting money on fire. The initial construction segment was chosen, among other segments considered for that role, because it provides considerable short-term return in terms of improvements in service on an already heavily traveled intercity rail route, as well as providing a good foundation for the initial operating segment for HSR.
> but when the bombshell dropped that it would have cost half if SNCF built it on the I-5 corridor
The SNCF proposal -- as those criticizing the High-Speed Rail Authority for rejecting it always fail to mention -- would have both used an alignment with lower ridership projections (and, thus, substantially less expected revenues) and required the State to provide SNCF with a revenue guarantee, both of which violate the laws governing the HSR project, and have the open-ended potential to cost the State far more in the long run.
European attitudes to public transport are certainly more receptive than those in the US. However, European attitudes to big infrastructure projects are a lot more NIMBYish. Asia could be good but then they are quite advanced with high-speed public transport anyways.
Plus, Elon doesn't live in Europe or Asia, so why would he?
Europeans have problems with NIMBY, but not nearly to the extent that the US does. It takes about 1/5 as much money to construct a mile of track in France as in the US, and 1/10 in Spain. My guess is that part of the point of the Hyperloop is to get around land use restrictions by going over them, and the largest payoff for that would be in the US where conventional land-based transport is hardest.
With regards to NIMBY I'd be very interested in how much external noise would be generated. If it's silent from the outside and all it takes is a nice line of trees to conceal it completely I can't imagine people would have that much of an issue with it.
Attitudes towards public transport in general seem more favourable in the EU, Japan, China and South Korea.
Perhaps I'm missing something, but I imagine getting such a system built in the EU (for example) would be easier than the US. Then again, Musk has been building a reputation with law-makers in the US for some time, so that might count for a lot.