9 ms·
I don't understand it either. The difficult thing in any transport system like this is clearly the land and land rights. If you can't make that cheaper and easi
by bb2018 8y ago
I don't understand it either. The difficult thing in any transport system like this is clearly the land and land rights. If you can't make that cheaper and easier to manage from a legal perspective than I don't see how a slightly better mode of transportation would offset it.
- Robotbeat 8y agoA high speed train can cause really nasty buffeting and acoustic pollution, extending the amount of landing buffer you need. This gets worse at high speed. A vacuum train eliminates that.
- kurthr 8y agoThat's why tunneling would probably be a better choice than going overland, certainly cheaper at Japan's costs than California's.
- IshKebab 8y agoYeah except tunnelling is extremely expensive. It sounds cheap in theory - just buy a TBM, run it for a while right? In practice it is so much more complicated. You have different soils, some that are water permeable - in Boston (I think) they solved that by literally freezing the ground. Does that sound cheap? Then you have issues going under buildings (which you always are - otherwise why bother tunnelling?). All tunnelling disturbs the ground. When they built the Jubilee line extension under the houses of parliament they had to monitor how far Big Ben started leaning, and do something call "compensation grouting" to tip it back upright (basically you drill horizontal holes under it and pump concrete under it). Tunnelling is just expensive. That's why it only happens where the alternative - building on land is very expensive.