5 ms·
That doesn't seem like the main problem to me. The main problem is that the system as proposed by Musk, even taking all of the optimistic assumptions at face v
by honkhonkpants 10y ago
That doesn't seem like the main problem to me. The main problem is that the system as proposed by Musk, even taking all of the optimistic assumptions at face value, has a daily passenger capacity close to zero. The tube capacity is proposed to be less than 1000 passengers per hour. That doesn't even compare well with the capacity of a single lane of highway, and is orders of magnitude below what you get from a railroad.
- goodcanadian 10y agoIndeed . . . from the first announcement, I was intrigued by the concept and I truly hope it works out. HOWEVER, as proposed, it is no real competition with high speed rail. In fact, in my opinion, Musk missed the point of high speed rail entirely. It is less about getting from LA to SF quickly than it is about getting from Bakersfield to SF or from Fresno to LA. High speed rail links LA to SF as well as ALL POINTS IN BETWEEN. It creates a single economic corridor. Hyperloop on the other hand just links two points much the same way as air travel. This, coupled with the massive disparity in capacity that you pointed out, makes it ridiculous to compare Musk's hyperloop to high speed rail; it is more comparable to air travel.
- manuelflara 10y agoWell, there could be a niche, upscale market for getting from SF to LA in 30 minutes, like people going for meetings and coming back on the same day. Other modes of transportation takes just too long for that kind of use case. I don't think this was ever thought of as a transportation option for people who commute to work every day because they can't afford to live in the center of those cities. Hyperloop, if it's ever built and works, will probably be the Concorde of ground transportation, in terms of market share and price. Although if we look at the outcome of Concorde, it may not make a lot of sense to follow that path.
- goodcanadian 10y agoOh, I agree; there are use cases, but the original announcement billed it as a better alternative to high speed rail, and I just don't think it is in remotely the same category.
- takeda 10y agoI think the real Musk's goal is to have companies start researching this technology and perfecting it, because it could be quite useful when colonizing Mars.
- Applejinx 10y agoHa! I think you're absolutely correct. An interesting twist.
- djrogers 10y ago> High speed rail links LA to SF as well as ALL POINTS IN BETWEEN. Except when you add the 'all points in between' it stops being high speed rail. The current CA 'bullet train' as planned is projected to be only marginally faster than standard rail over the majority of it's run - 80-100MPH.
- goodcanadian 10y agoAccepting your statement at face value, that is still faster than driving and more convenient than the existing system which is, well, nothing. Standard rail, which does not currently exist on that route, would be even slower with the same stops. Los Angeles to Oakland on the Coast Starlight takes 11+ hours. [EDIT: Bakersfield to Oakland on the San Joaquins is about 6 hours. At 90 mph, high speed rail would cut that trip in half.] Further, not every train has to stop at every station; there can be express trains.
- djrogers 10y agoBakersfield to Oakland is a 4 hour drive by any reasonable measure, and it would be cheaper to boot. The Cali bull*^% train isn't competing against rail - it's competing against cars and airplanes.
- djsumdog 10y agoGerman ICE trains don't run at full speed except in certain segments. At full speed, they get over 300kph! Also, you're forgetting about express trains. With sidings and in-cab signals, you can have high speed rail that stop at ever stations and others that pass intermediary stations for morning/evening commuters.
- djrogers 10y agoNo, I'm not forgetting them. Part of the lower speeds projected are due to shared rail, and noise/safety concerns traveling through populated areas.
- geezerjay 10y ago> The tube capacity is proposed to be less than 1000 passengers per hour. That doesn't even compare well with the capacity of a single lane of highway It takes 3 to 5 airplanes departing per hour to get near that capacity.
- honkhonkpants 10y agoMajor airports handle departures at the pace of 30-40 per hour.
- geezerjay 10y agoAirport capacity is not the point. The point is that each plane costs around 300 million. A single modern high-speed train costs less than 100 million, and has over 5 times the capacity of a single passenger plane.