Hyperloop One - Columbus semi-finalist for futuristic, high-speed transportation system (earthquake, costs)

[carmen_ohio]

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2017/01/09/columbus-semi-finalist-for-futuristic-high-speed-transportation-system.html

Cliff Notes Version:
Hyperloop One is building a transportation system comprised of giant tubes that will transport people at speeds of 700 mph. Columbus is part of the Midwestern proposal, which is one of 35 international finalists. At these speeds, one could travel from Columbus to Chicago in 30 minutes, or Columbus to Pittsburgh in 15 minutes.

[jbcmh81]

So I guess this would certainly be better than HSR, but the technology still seems unfinished. It would be very cool, though, to see Columbus a part of this.

[WRnative]

Now this makes sense.

I wonder how it would be financed, and how airline interests would lobby to block it.

I would want it buried in concrete well underground to protect against terrorism. The tubes would have to be earthquake proof, even in Ohio.

Here's an active link to the Dispatch article:

Columbus semi-finalist for futuristic, high-speed transportation system | The Columbus Dispatch

[Mplsite]

Thing is, if it costs several times more than real HSR (well over 110 MPH max), then why not just build a lot more HSR? At least with HSR the technology has already been implemented successfully, is probably cheaper by a good deal, and still much faster than driving. Who knows what kind of timeline we're looking at.

[WRnative]

Originally Posted by Mplsite

Thing is, if it costs several times more than real HSR (well over 110 MPH max), then why not just build a lot more HSR? At least with HSR the technology has already been implemented successfully, is probably cheaper by a good deal, and still much faster than driving. Who knows what kind of timeline we're looking at.

I suspect this system is substantially more energy efficient than anything that has to deal with friction from air resistance. If so, its operation costs might be significantly less.

If hardened and buried, it would be much less vulnerable to a terrorist attack, or even to accidental destruction as its right-of-way would not be vulnerable to even flying debris, perhaps from a storm.

Finally, its incredible speed should attract users.

The idea of persons commuting between Pittsburgh and Columbus, however, is disgustingly wasteful and dangerous in a climate-change challenged world.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by Mplsite

Thing is, if it costs several times more than real HSR (well over 110 MPH max), then why not just build a lot more HSR? At least with HSR the technology has already been implemented successfully, is probably cheaper by a good deal, and still much faster than driving. Who knows what kind of timeline we're looking at.

Technology gets cheaper over time. I support HSR, but this would have obvious benefits over it that might counter potential costs, the most obvious being the ridiculously fast travel times that beat both HSR and airplanes. And if it's also used to move freight, that would definitely help the strong distribution hub that Columbus already is. I'm sure any such project is years away, though, and Columbus should still be working on mass transit alternatives, at least within the city. Hyper-loops are not really designed for short-distances... at least not yet.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by WRnative

I suspect this system is substantially more energy efficient than anything that has to deal with friction from air resistance. If so, its operation costs might be significantly less.

If hardened and buried, it would be much less vulnerable to a terrorist attack, or even to accidental destruction as its right-of-way would not be vulnerable to even flying debris, perhaps from a storm.

Finally, its incredible speed should attract users.

The idea of persons commuting between Pittsburgh and Columbus, however, is disgustingly wasteful and dangerous in a climate-change challenged world.

Why would it be wasteful? How polluting would such a system be? Wouldn't it actually eliminate the need to use far more harmful transportation, like cars, for long-distance travel?

[WRnative]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

Why would it be wasteful? How polluting would such a system be? Wouldn't it actually eliminate the need to use far more harmful transportation, like cars, for long-distance travel?

Pittsburgh is 185 hours from Columbus. The cost and pollution likely associated with such a long commute would be wasteful IMO, although perhaps not as wasteful as a 60-mile commute by car on a crowded highway. Do you actually know that the pollution and cost would be relatively minimal, or do you just like to argue in ignorance?

[motorman]

Originally Posted by WRnative

Pittsburgh is 185 hours from Columbus. The cost and pollution likely associated with such a long commute would be wasteful IMO, although perhaps not as wasteful as a 60-mile commute by car on a crowded highway. Do you actually know that the pollution and cost would be relatively minimal, or do you just like to argue in ignorance?

My lips are sealed...

[bjimmy24]

Why would anyone commute from Pittsburgh to Columbus or vice versa?