Pipe dream: Would Cleveland and Ohio be smart to back a hyperloop network? (Columbus: buying, construction)

[cle2sf]

We've all heard the bad news about United de-hubbing CLE. Instead of wallowing in misery in the typical Cleveland style, why not brainstorm options that would put the region back on the (transportation) map?

Cleveland's greatest strength has always been its convenient location between the Midwest and the NE corridor. Air travel is most profitable for trips greater than 500 miles, which is the main reason why CLE isn't appealing as an airline hub (many of its hub flights were short hops to small markets). On the other hand, high speed rail has proven to be extremely successful in Europe, which has a similar population density to the Northeast and Midwest. Kasich essentially dashed the state's hopes of being a hub in a national high speed rail network, but perhaps this recent blow to the state's most populous region will wake up the powers-that-be.

However, you may have heard of Elon Musk's proposed "hyperloop" between LA and SF, which would connect the two cities with a 760 mph, 35 minute trip on a new form of transportation. At an estimated cost of $6b, it's not cheap, but certainly cheaper than the proposed CA high speed rail network. At this point in time, no public officials have jumped behind pursuing the idea.

My question is, would it be worth the risk for Ohio to spearhead the creation of an "East of the Mississippi" hyperloop network? Imagine that the federal government covers a good portion of the startup cost, but Ohio is still on the hook for $6b in construction costs and maintenance over 20 years.

The parts of the network most relevant to Cleveland would be a "3C" segment, where riders in Cleveland could reach Columbus in 10 minutes, Dayton in 20 minutes, and Cincinnati in 25 minutes; Cleveland to Chicago (40 minutes) via Toledo (10 minutes); Cleveland to NYC (45 minutes) via Pittsburgh (10 minutes) and Philadelphia (30 minutes); Cleveland to Boston (60 minutes) via Buffalo (15 minutes), Rochester (20 minutes), Syracuse (30 minutes), and Albany (40 minutes). Obviously, these times are all gross approximations.

Such a network would allow the vast majority of Ohio's population centers to function as a single metropolitan area, turn Cleveland into a logical meeting point for businesses based in the eastern half of the country, and enable reasonable commutes to the largest job centers in the country. Why commute an hour and a half from Allentown to NYC when you can live in Cleveland and have half the commute?

[Cleverfield]

I like the big thinking, but the realist in my has to express my skepticism. Has there even been a proof of concept of such technology? If the technology has never even been tested, and only exists in theory, how can we be expected to back such a thing? It would've been foolish to build an airport before the airplane was invented. I think it's a good idea to fund the inventor to create a proof of concept, but before we can start talking about making this a reality, show me that it works.

[cle2sf]

From what I've read, the hyperloop is technologically possible, but the greatest challenges are economic and political. In order to study the feasibility of the project and build a prototype, there needs to be a source of funding to pay the engineers, planners, etc. While California has the advantage of having two very large metropolitan areas that are the ideal distance for such a project, there are some huge disadvantages. First and foremost, the ever-present threat of an earthquake drives up construction costs. California's notoriously slow bureaucracy and planning requirements will continue to pile on additional costs. Finally, the topography of the state and cost of land acquisition prevent the system from going directly between DTSF and DTLA.

If Ohio found a way to fund more in-depth feasibility studies, Cleveland-Columbus would be an ideal test segment. At best, Ohio becomes the hub of a 21st century transportation system and businesses flood in. At worst, we waste a few million dollars (but might turn a few heads and shed the "backwards" image of the state).

[YaFace]

Just ask yourself when was the last time you took Amtrak or Greyhound. Then you have just answered your own question.

[SteelCityRising]

Originally Posted by YaFace

Just ask yourself when was the last time you took Amtrak or Greyhound. Then you have just answered your own question.

Speaking as a Pittsburgher who loves exploring regional cities I can safely say I would most definitely utilize high-speed rail between Pittsburgh and Cleveland. Would I rather take a train for 30-45 minutes (I'm not buying that 10-minute estimate provided by the OP) or drive for a little over two hours? The 2-3 hours I'd save round-trip would permit us enough time when visiting to see an additional attraction (spending MORE money in your city). Cleveland, Akron, Canton, Youngstown, New Castle, Sharon, Weirton/Steubenville, and Pittsburgh are all interconnected economically, albeit loosely ("CleveBurgh", anyone?), and I feel as if all of these areas stand to benefit from a high-speed rail connection nearby.

Small communities in between the main "hub" cities could also benefit greatly. For example, let's presume I board a high-speed train in Pittsburgh, bound for Chicago, and after 75-90 minutes I decide I'm hungry and want to grab some grub. Conveniently the train is stopping in Toledo at this time, so I get off the train, explore the nearby Downtown area, hit up a local restaurant, and then get back on a different westbound train and continue on to Chicago, which I'll get to in another 75 minutes.

I don't believe this "pipe dream" is at all feasible, though, given the political nature of your state, which seems to prefer automobiles to mass transit. If my own more heavily-populated and supposedly more fiscally-liberal Pennsylvania had to be begged just to save AMTRAK between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, then I'm not sure how likely Ohio would be to invest hundreds of millions (or billions, actually) towards a high-speed rail network just connecting the "Three C's", let alone connecting to other states. I feel as if on the Federal level we've entered an era in which we're going to be somewhat more thrifty for the next 10-20 years as we try to reduce deficits and debt levels BEFORE spending more on major capital projects like this.

[SquareBetterThanAll]

Cool idea but I agree it wouldn't fly even if it was possible. Aside from the cost to build you've got all the associated user costs and time wasters - parking fees, ticket costs, no doubt all sorts of security hurdles, etc.

It is a big hoop to jump through to be more cost and time effective than driving for day trips, on top of the ingrained mental advantage cars have.

And with build out costs in the billions, what would a ticket cost? No one is going to pay $300 to go to Columbus even if it is a little bit faster.

[deskjockey]

Originally Posted by SteelCityRising

I feel as if on the Federal level we've entered an era in which we're going to be somewhat more thrifty for the next 10-20 years as we try to reduce deficits and debt levels BEFORE spending more on major capital projects like this.

You mean, banksters should not expect bailouts for the next several years?!

[reretarf]

If the tourism is good, then why not?

[Cleveland_Collector]

The technologies Musk speaks of (linear induction motors, air bearings, partial vacuum aerodynamics) are very viable/possible and in use in many industries. The technology at this scale is simply unproven. The only way anything like this gets built is with a heavy subsidy. And $6B for a first time, 350 mile project -- not a prayer. There are so many practical unknowns with an untested technology in a project of this magnitude. What would make the most sense is to build a cross-town, lower speed version somewhere (maybe between an airport and a city center) to prove the viability and efficiency of the design. Essentially, you make people believe in it and then ramp it up.

[billmesh]

I would love to find out where we would get the money for such a thing. With as expensive as high speed rail is, I can't imagine this to be cheaper. For example, I have just moved back from a stint in Europe... I lived in the Netherlands, specifically. Over the past decade, they have invested 6.7 billion Euros (approx 8.7 billion dollars) in a 75 mile long high speed rail corridor. 75 miles for 8.7 billion. Extrapolating that is 16.5 billion from Cleveland to Columbus, and about 26 billion Cleveland to Cincinnati. This was not over any difficult terrain either... imagine the drive from CLE to Cbus down 71, that's what the Dutch landscape resembles. The $500 million for the 3-C "high speed" corridor wouldn't even dent what would be needed.

The only reason they were able to afford it is because of ridiculous taxation. I was in the 50% tax bracket... 50%, let that soak in.