5 ms·
In most practical ways Hyperloop is a train. It has a fixed unchangeable route that can be blocked by a single carriage. Without a massive network this will o
by 7952 13y ago
In most practical ways Hyperloop is a train. It has a fixed unchangeable route that can be blocked by a single carriage. Without a massive network this will only be of value to people who happen to want to travel that particular route. The world has a long history of new methods emerging and they often fail in the long run. In Britain we had a canal boom, then a rail boom, and most of those routes are now closed or obsolete.
It would be better to concentrate on increasing public transport in the road and air. Build a separate road network for freight and coaches. Make energy efficient airplanes that can fly short distances quietly and land on short runways. Build systems to automatically route parcels to make same day delivery possible. This would create a network that would be much more adaptable and complement what already exists.
Rail is like dial-up between a few key points that ignores existing networks that could be upgraded. Hyperloop is just a faster connection to a dysfunctional network.
- moocowduckquack 13y agoRoads? Where we're going we don't need roads. Multi-lane roads are fixed routes that can be blocked by a single lorry and frequently are. Without a massive network increase, roads are rapidly becoming of appalling value on many major routes. Everything fails in the long run, including the current road network and we need ways to build capacity with minimum land use, because land rights are often the major cost. Also, the car hauling version integrates directly with the road network anyway so I don't know really what your network complaint is about. Besides, all transport upgrades, including road or rail, are just a faster connection to a dysfunctional network. If we were happy that it was properly functional, we wouldn't be looking to upgrade it.
- Anderkent 13y ago>If we were happy that it was properly functional, we wouldn't be looking to upgrade it. That doesn't follow. You can still upgrade something that is properly functional.
- moocowduckquack 13y agoYou can upgrade functional things before they break, but people don't go looking to generally. At least unless they are gifted with a lot more foresight than the average level of human organisation. People sometimes do, but it seems to be the exception rather than the rule and is even harder when dealing with large organisations.
- 7952 13y agoPeople break down all the time, but mostly they pull over and are overtaken by the other traffic. I agree that heavy vehicles are a big problem which is why I suggested creating special provision just for them. Congestion from cars is bad for business because it blocks freight. Congestion from lorry's is bad for everyone. Imagine the benefit of removing all intercity freight from the roads?
- moocowduckquack 13y agoIs not just breakdowns that can hold up traffic, road vehicles also crash a lot more often than trains and congestion is harder to manage as you cannot regulate flow in the same way. I am not anti-roads. Roads are great, they can link everywhere really easily, however they have issues that can be reduced by pairing them with high speed rail and air for long distance travel and light rail in urban centers for bike and foot passengers. Never mind just freight, imagine removing intercity traffic from roads and being able to visit the next town along without having to compete for the road with the folk going 500 miles.
- 7952 13y agoIf all the vehicles are routed and controlled centrally with automated safety systems it could be more reliable than rail. I am not suggesting we build more roads as they are today, rather build a network that has the advantages of rail via automation and just happens to use new roads as a pathway.