Not so friendly reminder that musk specifically came up with, and pushed, for hyperloop knowing that it would never be made, as an effort to stop the development of highspeed rail in America and shift all political discussions of it because “something better is around the corner”:
As I’ve written in my book, Musk admitted to his biographer Ashlee Vance that Hyperloop was all about trying to get legislators to cancel plans for high-speed rail in California—even though he had no plans to build it. Several years ago, Musk said that public transit was “a pain in the ass” where you were surrounded by strangers, including possible serial killers, to justify his opposition.
Also: 2024 update, the total length of China’s high-speed rail tracks has now reached well over 45,000 km, or 28,000 miles, by the end of 2023.
They are additionally five years ahead of schedule and expect to double the total number within ten years. And, before someone inevitably complains about “how expensive it is”, they are turning over a net-profit of over $600M USD a year.
Yes that is my point.
That is the “so what”, you answered your own question.
The fact that it is more regulated and more expensive than China is the main point. There are many hurdles, from NIMBY to regulatory capture, to competition with other industries. Without the profit motive, there is no private interest in HSR. That leaves it to the public sector and without strong public support, it will fail or won’t enjoy widespread adoption. The fact that there are at least two other widely available modes (air, car) of transportation in California undermines that support. In Europe, China and Japan HSR is more successful because they do not have the car culture or required infrastructure to support that mode of transportation that we enjoy in the USA.
Oh, do you “enjoy” air and car travel in California?
I think it’s a little strange to say Europe and China and even Japan lack the car and air infrastructure the US does, car culture sure.
My response was more asking to clarify what your response to OP was. The OP meme points out an embarassing gap between how other places have built HSR much to the benefit of its people while California has yet to lay a single line after a decade of promises for a people who want and stand to benefit from HSR. You pointed out obstacles that China doesn’t face, but none of these obstacles are insurmountable and have been overcome in other US projects, so how is the decade of broken promises not an embarassing tragedy?
That is a subjective question, not very many people enjoy the actual act of traveling no matter what it is. The fact remains those alternate modes of travel exist and compete with HSR no matter what your personal feelings are.
You seem intent on inventing strawman arguments. No where in my post did I state that the infrastructure for car and air travel didn’t exist in those countries. They just don’t exist to the extent that they do in the US. The vast majority of US citizens travel by car every day. Only in certain urban centers do you have the option of alternative modes of transportation. I’m arguing that ratio is quite different in China, Europe and japan.
I’ve laid that out in both of my prior statements, you even state:
Perhaps you should reread those points.
Let me rephrase on infrastructure. Car and Air infrastructure is obviously as developed (footprint, accessibility, sophistication, etc.) in Europe and China compared to the US. Utilization proportions is going to be different because US lacks HSR. That Americans use cars more than other countries doesn’t mean those countries have less developed car infrastructure for the needs of their populations.
And again, other US infrastructure projects that deal with the same obstacles show they don’t prevent development. So they’re weak excuses. I am very open to reasonable or more specific explanations as to why HSR development in California is justifiably dead.
While I appreciate a well written and thought out response, especially one which I can broadly find common ground with you on. That isn’t at all the point you made, in your original pithy comment. See below:
US infrastructure projects do encounter similar issues that exist in Japan and Europe. Car infrastructure is far more developed and integrated within the US than in those countries. US cities (by and large) are designed around cars. Our suburbs exist because of cars. One may not agree with cars from a philosophical, environmental or economic basis. But the fact is the infrastructure is there and the majority of Americans already have the necessary vehicles to use it. Americans are also already conditioned to take their car where they want to go.
Trains do not have that existing infrastructure. Most US Cities have poor public transportation infrastructure compared to their European and Japanese cohorts. The population is also not conditioned to use it. For individuals that have already sunk money into a car for their day to day transportation, using the train is demonstrably more expensive.
HSR may be popular, but with existing entrenched alternatives that are better suited for the existing infrastructure. They just aren’t a priority. Yes European and Japanese cities have cars infrastructure in place, but the cost of ownership is higher, the availability of parking is less and ease of operation is significantly lower than in the US. There are many cases where operating a car in a city such as Paris with heavy traffic regulation just doesn’t make sense. In those environments robust HSR infrastructure can flourish.