The entire thesis hinges on this quote from Ashlee Vance, who corrected/retracted said quote years later:
>>Musk told me that the idea originated out of his hatred for California’s proposed high-speed rail system. … He insisted the Hyperloop would cost about $6 billion to $10 billion, go faster than a plane, and let people drive their cars onto a pod and drive out into a new city. 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 the thing. … With any luck, the high-speed rail would be canceled. Musk said as much to me during a series of e-mails and phone calls leading up to the announcement.
I have no divine insight into Musk's or any tech billionaire's minds, but if this article's thesis is that the billionaires' are conspiring to put down viable public transit, I would like to see more evidence.
I do not disagree, however, that Hyperloop was an infeasible project from the get-go.
When a person retracts a statement about a wealthy individual, one may reasonably wonder whether it was done under legal pressure. In this case, however, it seems that Ashlee Vance feels it is his words that are being taken out of context to see an attempt to quash high-speed rail:
“The Boring Company is one of [Musk’s] ventures that I’ve never understood, really,” Vance replied. “I totally get your point. In general, though, there’s no part of me that believes Elon was trying to kill public transport so people would stay in cars. I just don’t believe that.... Elon didn’t even need to bemoan the high-speed rail project for it to undermine itself.”
"Who Framed Roger Rabbit" is a whimsical retelling of the destruction of LA's public transit system on behalf of the car industry, who were considering to get highways built and lock people into car ownership.
It seems quite clear that Musk dislikes public transport. He's publicly stated that he thinks it sucks and is inconvenient. If you think public transport is a bad idea and you have the means to kill the project, it stands to reason you'd give it a shot.
I don't disagree entirely. Public transport is kind of rubbish and, all else being equal (travel times, cost, availability, etc.), I'd prefer to be in my own car as it drives itself directly to my destination. However, it's a question of whether it's possible to build a city around cars without it turning into a horrible traffic-filled hellscape, and so far Musk doesn't seem to have found an alternative solution. Certainly, there's nothing better on the table that works with current technology.
SV's ideas have probably done more to worsen the hellscape of car-dependent cities. Think of how many single-occupancy cars are on the road right now simply delivering someone's lunch. Robo-taxies don't eliminate cars, only the driver. Now that your car drives itself you don't mind the extra 20 minute commute if you can use that time to churn through emails.
Tell me you're an American without telling me you're an American[0].
If travel times, cost, and availability were actually equal, you'd pick public transit every time, because you don't have to focus on the cognitively stressful task of operating a motor vehicle. The reason why you care about being driven directly to your destination is specifically because the availability is so poor and gaps in the network get papered over with shittons of walking.
The car has an analogous 'last mile' problem - i.e. finding a place to legally park it at your destination. We fixed that by mandating free parking everywhere. This pushes buildings away from one another, which means walking is even less viable, which exacerbates the traffic issue with lots of short trips. It also disaggregates traffic flows, which makes availability more expensive to produce, et cetera.
I’m British and live in London so I live almost exclusively by public transport, walking and cycling. Driving here is also hard work. Most people I know in the UK, particularly anyone with a family, prefer driving, which is why the “anti-car” policies have been so controversial. Also, by availability I didn’t mean goes directly to your destination as that’s really just a fundamental limitation of public transport. Frankly, I would probably always drive over taking the tube/train/bus if it wasn’t for the cost of congestion charge and parking.
However, I recognise that driving is a selfish action with significant externalities, and I prefer to live somewhere that prioritises alternative forms of transportation. I vote for anyone who prioritises public transport and to restrict cars, because cars make cities ugly, noisy, dirty, unwalkable, and dangerous.
Other than commutes and peak hours in zone 1, driving normally takes less time, end-to-end. Really the only trips that take less time on the train in zone 2 and beyond are if each end of the trip is right next to the station. That's not a surprise, since around the world, most public transport is highly optimised at commuting and trips within the central zone.
I'll give you an example trips I take quite frequently (not exact so that I don't dox myself completely): Homebase Catford to Grove Park Cemetery: public transport 25 mins excluding waiting, driving 10 mins; Anytime Fitness Hither Green to Manor House Gardens: 22 mins vs 9 mins; Voodoo Rays Peckham to Mountsfield Park: 15 mins vs 55 mins. It's also often cheaper to drive, especially if it's more than one person, and I usually have my partner with me.
Even in zone 1 at peak times, driving is usually about the same as public transport once you factor in the time for connections, waiting, getting down into the stations and back, etc. It's just expensive as hell with the congestion charge and parking costs.
The surprising thing about London's traffic is it really flows quite well, even compared to much smaller and less densely populated towns in the UK. I've driven across quite literally the length and breadth of the UK, and I've experienced much worse traffic elsewhere. I'm not sure if it's the fancy "smart" traffic light system we have or some other aspect of urban planning, but I find that I quite rarely get stuck in frustrating traffic jams. That is, except for if there's a bad crash in the Blackwall Tunnel. That can cause gridlock all the way back to Blackheath.
London and the UK in general have some of the best public transport in the world. It’s not the best for sure, and places like Switzerland, Japan and the Netherlands are better, but it’s the top 10 - and probably higher if you only consider countries with a large population.
I agree it sucks, but the fact that it sucks and is also one of the best does suggest that good public transport is difficult. Note how all the places with half decent public transport tend to be rich.
However even Switzerland (which I have been to) if I had to pick which form of transport has the most utility, I’d still choose the car. Public transport usually takes longer door-to-door and involves changes in modes or doesn’t quite get you to your destination. Also it isn’t 24/7. It’s great for commuting, not so great for other things. I guess nightlife though isn’t a huge concern in Zurich :)
About a week, but in the modern day it definitely doesn't take a month to get used to a city's public transport system. Phones now tell you all you need to know in most developed countries. Perhaps with the exception of particularly terrible ticketing systems such as the UK train system and, I can't remember why now as it's been a few years, but I hate the train ticketing in Germany too. But even in those cases, you still get where you're going, just with the chance that you'll get told off by a ticket inspector because your train isn't valid for the super ultra full moon off-peak ticket you booked.
And London really does have some of the best in the world. There are a lot of rough edges, for sure, but nearly all rankings I can find have it around 10th best city public transportation system in the world which is pretty up there. Maybe now that they've finally fixed Bank station, it could even go up a few points ;). Zurich is probably the best I've experienced, and Stockholm, Tokyo and Singapore are also very good. Paris, Moscow, Madrid, New York City and Amsterdam are probably all roughly on par with London; better in some ways, worse in others, and which one you prefer probably depends on your individual preferences.
Eh. London has pretty good public transport _coverage_, but it doesn’t _work_ very well. Like, it’s a lot better than anything you’d find in the US, but many continental systems are more reliable, better organised, and cleaner.
Some are better, many are not. There are not many other systems of the same scale as London's in the continent, and those that are aren't really much better. The Paris Metro for example is very dirty and smelly in my experience, although the trains are frequent which is nice. Generally, across the world, I find larger cities have dirtier public transport, with the exception of Tokyo which is spotless. There are lots of cute and beautiful tiny systems across Europe, like Prague, but it's obviously easier to make a small system that works well than something at the scale of London, Paris or NYC.
Where London really struggles, as the whole of the UK does, is the awful ticketing system. That said if you don't care too much about the cost and stick to the Oyster zone, you can just tap your phone and not think about it beyond that. Oh, also the lack of AC for the few weeks of hot temperatures we get, but that at least is apparently being fixed soon.
Functionality wise, I've never had any issues in London. The open data is accurate and comprehensive, so the app of your choice has accurate route planning, you pay by tapping your phone and follow the instructions. Other systems have mostly caught up now, but for a long time London did better than 90% of other systems in that area.
I'd say the city I found most surprisingly good was Stockholm. Very comprehensive for the relatively small population size, and all the stations were beautiful and clean. If anything, it seemed overbuilt and almost desolate a lot of the time. I'm not sure how they afford or justify the upkeep on it given that most other systems in the world seem to be struggling.
> Some public transport absolutely is 24/7.
It may well be, but Zurich's isn't, which is what I was talking about! Very few places have 24/7 trains, but Zurich doesn't even have 24 hour busses except at the weekend.
If travel times, cost, and availability were actually equal, you'd pick public transit every time, because you don't have to focus on the cognitively stressful task of operating a motor vehicle.
Sounds like a case of projection. Most people aren't especially intimidated by driving, and quite a few actually enjoy it. Far fewer people enjoy being packed onto a crowded bus or train with strangers (and those are the ones who inevitably sit next to me.)
When people have the option to drive, and the money to do so, they usually prefer to.
The problem with California High Speed Rail is that they literally have no plans for the section that goes through the mountains. There are huge elevation changes in a seismically active area and its not clear that they'll ever figure it out.
No I'm saying parcel maps and data sheets are not an approachable high level description of how these challenges are getting resolved. It's possible it has been. I'm not disputing that. But I don't have the necessary technical background to read the data sheets and make that determination & go from low level technical info to high level description of how these problems are getting tackled.
That being said, the biggest hurdle is with the HSR is not technical but the political disfunction within the US that cripples large projects:
> “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 original route that was supposed to service SF <-> LA now has detours that have added substantially to the costs and slowed down the rail (no longer a straight line). Similarly, they started building it out in the easiest possible point (in the middle of the country in the flat lands) rather than in places where they could start operating it and providing value (Bay Area/LA). It was clearly hijacked as a way to steal funds earmarked for transit and now is such a large project that has begun, that funding will probably continue indefinitely to help save face.
What "original route"? The route is quite literally encoded into the state law, passed by plebiscite. The route is required to serve Fresno, Bakersfield, and Palmdale. The fact that SNCF thought it would be easier to build a TGV in a depopulated colony is immaterial.
Seriously look at the cover of the 2005 EIR that was published before Prop. 1A was passed. This is the original route! There was never another one!
> It was clearly hijacked as a way to steal funds earmarked for transit
More ignorance here. It's the opposite. Prop 1A funds are funding local transit projects, in the billions of dollars. HSR funds paid to electrify Caltrain.
Look, it's perfectly obvious that you do not have a factual grounding for your beliefs. Instead of posting, why don't you research?
Those are just proposed parcel maps, and the other document you linked says "See Tunnel Plans for more details". They very much haven't gotten into the details on how to make this segment work.
> There are huge elevation changes in a seismically active area and its not clear that they'll ever figure it out.
That same issue applies to any high-speed project that's not air travel, regardless of if it moves along asphalt or rails and if it runs on or below the ground.
California sure hasn't. They're billions over budget, and years behind schedule and keep putting off the part of the project that is the most challenging which is a hallmark of failed endeavors.
>>Musk told me that the idea originated out of his hatred for California’s proposed high-speed rail system. … He insisted the Hyperloop would cost about $6 billion to $10 billion, go faster than a plane, and let people drive their cars onto a pod and drive out into a new city. 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 the thing. … With any luck, the high-speed rail would be canceled. Musk said as much to me during a series of e-mails and phone calls leading up to the announcement.
I have no divine insight into Musk's or any tech billionaire's minds, but if this article's thesis is that the billionaires' are conspiring to put down viable public transit, I would like to see more evidence.
I do not disagree, however, that Hyperloop was an infeasible project from the get-go.