Hyperloop A jaunt From Los Angeles to San Francisco in 30 Minutes

http://www.themoneytimes.com/ ^

[Category Four]

Pipe dream, I'm sure (no pun intended) ... but even so, am I the only one who had a Donald Fagen moment as a result?

[CutePuppy]

This idea's been around for a long time.

From New York Had a Hyperloop First, Elon Musk - BL, by Stephen Mihm, 2013 August 14

< snip > ..... With all due respect to Mr. Musk, the idea isn't new. This has been pointed out by some commentators, who have noted that in 1972 Rand Corporation researcher R. M. Salter released a proposal to ferry passengers from New York to Los Angeles in a mere 21 minutes, or 14 minutes less than the hyperloop would take to send them from Los Angeles to San Francisco. But at its heart, Musk's project is even more old school: It owes most of its inspiration to ideas that have been around for two hundred years.

In 1812, a British inventor named George Medhurst proposed "a plan for the rapid conveyance of goods and passengers ... by the power and velocity of air." The heart of Medhurst's system was a pneumatic tube, and while the far-out plan went nowhere, subsequent generations of inventors and visionaries eagerly embraced it, experimenting with so-called pneumatic railways — or "atmospheric railways" — that promised to carry passengers in carriages shot through airtight tubes. ..... < snip >

From Don't Dash My Hyperloop Dreams - BL, by Megan McArdle, 2013 August 14

< snip > ..... I'm ready to scrap California's high-speed rail project and build this hyperloop thing instead just because, wow, cool! Might it be a massive waste of government funds? Possibly, but probably not as wasteful as the high-speed rail project. ..... < snip >

So why might we want to build a hyperloop, instead of a train or nothing at all?

• It's environmentally friendly: < snip > .....

• It's fast: Because of the aforementioned lack of wind resistance, the pods can move at upwards of 700 miles per hour. A trip between L.A. and San Francisco could be completed in well under an hour. This is not only faster than high-speed rail, it's also faster than an airplane.

• It's safe: < snip > .....

• It can use existing rights-of-way for highways. < snip > .....

• It's in the air, which means that other land acquisition may be easier. < snip > .....

• It's cheaper than high-speed rail. Even if Musk's estimates of the land acquisition costs are off by a factor of ten, this would still be much, much cheaper than the rail boondoggle. The operating costs are also supposed to be low — low enough to allow a ticket cost of $20-40.

• Cars can depart every two minutes, according to Musk. < snip > .....

So what are the downsides?

• As I believe I mentioned, it's going to be more expensive than Musk is projecting. < snip > .....

• It's a fixed route. The great advantage of planes is that you just need an airstrip at both ends; < snip > .....

• The throughput is limited by the capacity of the tube. Essentially, the hyperloop is a tunnel that goes for hundreds of miles. Once you hit capacity, that's it. < snip > .....

• It's not clear to me whether you can have intermediate stops. < snip > .....

• It is going to trigger fierce resistance from a lot of rail buffs. They're heavily invested in California's high-speed train. This threatens that dream. < snip > .....

Well laid out most important positives and negatives (outside of practical engineering issues). Something to think about, especially when taking the idea outside of narrow spectrum of 'LA - SF passenger-only transport' mindset and applying it to some other areas and/or needs.

[bigdaddy45]

Amen Brother. There’s a contingent here who thinks that any mode of transport that doesn’t involve an internal combustion engine is akin to a commie plot.