4 ms·

The building permit/ titles to land limit really only applies in countries with proper property rights. In a lot of emerging countries, this tech should have a

The building permit/ titles to land limit really only applies in countries with proper property rights. In a lot of emerging countries, this tech should have a bright future.

trome 10y ago
It can't even move 1000 people an hour, a road moves 2k an hour, a set of metal sticks we call rail moves 20k an hour. That is why rail is so popular across Asia & Europe, if your moving large volumes of people it is very, very efficient.
- vidarh 10y ago
  > It can't even move 1000 people an hour, a road moves 2k an hour, a set of metal sticks we call rail moves 20k an hour. You are now making lots of assumptions for each mode of transport without stating them. Given that none of the companies working on different Hyperloop concepts are even directly replicating the original proposal, your assumptions for hyperloop may or may not hold, but without stating which of revised models you're discussing throwing out numbers like this is entirely meaningless.
  - jcranmer 10y ago
    You can estimate people/hour by working out people/car * cars/hour. If you assume that Hyperloop uses 90-second headways, you need 25 people per dispatched train to meet just 1000 people per hour. I think that's higher than any proposal I've seen for a Hyperloop car. In contrast, a regular commuter train can carry ~1000 people per train, and you need to dispatch them at 3 minute intervals (20 trains/hour) to move 20,000 people per hour. A single lane of road traffic will carry ~2000 cars per hour. Assuming single-occupant vehicles, that's ~2000 people/hour.
    - michaelt 10y ago
      This video of a cable car [1] shows a ~22 second headway between cars. And that's loading them at the lazy pace of a tourist attraction. With longer platforms, experienced commuters and more staff, you might be able to send cars out even faster. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=By27vhASp1A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=By27vhASp1A
      - jcranmer 10y ago
        The limiting factor on rail networks is the time it takes switches to reset. The London Underground has a scheduled headway of 60 seconds on its busiest line, WMATA 90. (They can switch faster, but if there's a breakdown, it's useful to have extra slack in the schedule so you can recover). Cable cars don't need to switch, but Hyperloop does. At the speeds of Hyperloop, the minimum allowable distance between two cars is another factor.
- nhangen 10y ago
  The key metric you're missing is distance. It may not carry 1k people per hour, but it can carry people faster than most any other means of transportation. Because of that, I'd venture to say that your paradigm is wrong.
- Arizhel 10y ago
  You're comparing apples to oranges. What you should be comparing Hyperloop to is airplanes, not other land-based transport systems. Hyperloop is very fast, and is meant to compete with regional air travel. It's not likely to be cheap per-ticket, so it's not comparable to trains and cars. It's not meant to move large volumes of people cheaply, it's meant to move high fare-paying people very quickly so they don't have to deal with the problems inherent in air travel.

The building permit/ titles to land limit really only applies in countries with proper property rights. In a lot of emerging countries, this tech should have a bright future.

trome 10y ago

It can't even move 1000 people an hour, a road moves 2k an hour, a set of metal sticks we call rail moves 20k an hour. That is why rail is so popular across Asia & Europe, if your moving large volumes of people it is very, very efficient.

vidarh 10y ago
> It can't even move 1000 people an hour, a road moves 2k an hour, a set of metal sticks we call rail moves 20k an hour. You are now making lots of assumptions for each mode of transport without stating them. Given that none of the companies working on different Hyperloop concepts are even directly replicating the original proposal, your assumptions for hyperloop may or may not hold, but without stating which of revised models you're discussing throwing out numbers like this is entirely meaningless.
- jcranmer 10y ago
  You can estimate people/hour by working out people/car * cars/hour. If you assume that Hyperloop uses 90-second headways, you need 25 people per dispatched train to meet just 1000 people per hour. I think that's higher than any proposal I've seen for a Hyperloop car. In contrast, a regular commuter train can carry ~1000 people per train, and you need to dispatch them at 3 minute intervals (20 trains/hour) to move 20,000 people per hour. A single lane of road traffic will carry ~2000 cars per hour. Assuming single-occupant vehicles, that's ~2000 people/hour.
  - michaelt 10y ago
    This video of a cable car [1] shows a ~22 second headway between cars. And that's loading them at the lazy pace of a tourist attraction. With longer platforms, experienced commuters and more staff, you might be able to send cars out even faster. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=By27vhASp1A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=By27vhASp1A
    - jcranmer 10y ago
      The limiting factor on rail networks is the time it takes switches to reset. The London Underground has a scheduled headway of 60 seconds on its busiest line, WMATA 90. (They can switch faster, but if there's a breakdown, it's useful to have extra slack in the schedule so you can recover). Cable cars don't need to switch, but Hyperloop does. At the speeds of Hyperloop, the minimum allowable distance between two cars is another factor.
nhangen 10y ago
The key metric you're missing is distance. It may not carry 1k people per hour, but it can carry people faster than most any other means of transportation. Because of that, I'd venture to say that your paradigm is wrong.
Arizhel 10y ago
You're comparing apples to oranges. What you should be comparing Hyperloop to is airplanes, not other land-based transport systems. Hyperloop is very fast, and is meant to compete with regional air travel. It's not likely to be cheap per-ticket, so it's not comparable to trains and cars. It's not meant to move large volumes of people cheaply, it's meant to move high fare-paying people very quickly so they don't have to deal with the problems inherent in air travel.