Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Now here's an idea with some merit. How about they build it from Canada down to Texas, call it HyperstoneXL? You know a plan that could actually do something as opposed to KeystoneXL.
Forget it. Any possible money for something like that, has already been sucked up by the absurd and unneeded California High Speed Rail project.
If there was ever any hope of California regaining fiscal viability, CHSR has scuttled it. There won't be money for Thomas the Tank Engine, much less a heinleinesque tube train.
All the sensible people in California (yes, there are still some left) couldn't stop the white elephant of CHSR. If this guy thinks he can, to put in his Hyperloop instead, he hasn't been paying attention.
It's like being shot out of a really big bb gun. Nope, I'll never be in THAT much hurry.
While I totally agree with you, I do wonder if you take planes? Those are almost as fast (about 75% of the proposed max speed of that tube thingy), you just don't notice it because of the distance from the ground
Now here's an idea with some merit. How about they build it from Canada down to Texas, call it HyperstoneXL? You know a plan that could actually do something as opposed to KeystoneXL.
that isn't going to put nay gas in my car or stop people crying when there is a shortage. besides no one want to build it except at taxpayers expense and highly subsidized fares after that.Pipeline to pump crude will be much cheaper and safer to transport than rail being used now. Lower gasoline prices.
Part of the problem with the Hyperloop is its tiny capacity. A 26 person pod launched every three minutes has a maximum capacity of around 12,480 people per day or 520 people per hour (I'll use this latter metric from here on as it's the better standard. To achieve this same capacity, the California High Speed Rail project has to run 1.3 trains per hour. If the CAHSR project runs twice per hour its capacity is 800 people per hour. Four times per hours is 1600 people per hour. If you need more capacity at specific times, add another trainset to instantly double the capacity. The route is being built with this in mind (long platforms, trainsets spec'd for multiple operation) so it no only has tremendously more capacity than Hyperloop (theoretically as much as 9600 people per hour, possibly higher), but it also has far greater flexibility. This latter point extends to beyond the backbone route as the trainsets are able to leave the dedicated high speed portion and serve branches off the route with minimal new infrastructure compared to trying to do the same with Hyperloop. To put some costs per capacity to this, if the CAHSR cost $98 billion, and has a maximum theoretical capacity of 9600 people, the cost is $10,208,333.33 per person per hour. If the cost of the Hyperloop is $6 Billion and has a maximum theoretical capacity of 520 people per hour, the cost is $11,538,461.54 per person per hour. So you're getting more capacity for each dollar spent on CAHSR than you are the Hyperloop. The breakeven point for CAHSR, is to have a capacity of 8493 people per hour, or 10.6 twinned trains per hour, or a twinned train every 5.6 minutes.
Yes, I am using maximum theoretical capacity here, the system might start out running 2 or 4 trains each hour instead of 10, but that's after the massive capital costs are taken care of, unlike the Hyperloop which would need a substantial capital investment to expand its capacity.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.