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.
Currently people pay $300 to make that trip in several hours. Assuming that it's safe, critical mass could be hit at well above that price for a 30 minute ride. It would be insulting to charge less than what consumers are willing to pay.
Is this based on any analysis/price modeling or just what you think is reasonable?
If you consider that estimates in the 70s to build this was $1 trillion... $1000 might be on the low end.
I think the best route would be to build it up as a first-class only service. Pull the margins off the service. Without knowing the real numbers, however, it's just a guess.
Currently people pay $300 to make that trip in several hours. Assuming that it's safe, critical mass could be hit at well above that price for a 30 minute ride. It would be insulting to charge less than what consumers are willing to pay.
Currently people pay $300 to make that trip in several hours. Assuming that it's safe, critical mass could be hit at well above that price for a 30 minute ride. It would be insulting to charge less than what consumers are willing to pay.
Were you insulted when the price of computing power dropped?
The market will likely bear some high prices (relative to the estimates being bandied about), but that doesn't mean profit margins will be maximized. I think mass adoption will be a priority, not short term ROI. Longer term, if this technology is affordable and is adopted by the masses, then it will cause enormous disruption of related industries and even greater profits.
One small side effect of the hyperloop that was mentioned in the fine prints: the passengers will look like this for a few hours after arriving in LA from NY
... LA is trying to develop a 1-mile streetcar path, let alone develop a tube across the entire country...
The idea of putting a train in a tube is decades old. The cost of building the tube has always been massive. In the case of building a neutrally buoyant tunnel to cross bodies of water, the problem is no one has ever built one. We need to build one across the Great Lakes just to see what problems there are. Perhaps a rail from Toronto to upstate NYC.
I would like to see what is different about this guy's proposal that justifies this breakthrough in construction costs.
The idea of putting a train in a tube is decades old. The cost of building the tube has always been massive. In the case of building a neutrally buoyant tunnel to cross bodies of water, the problem is no one has ever built one. We need to build one across the Great Lakes just to see what problems there are. Perhaps a rail from Toronto to upstate NYC.
I would like to see what is different about this guy's proposal that justifies this breakthrough in construction costs.
Would cost to much for government to approve. Reminds me of when George H.W. Bush made it his mission to put military bases on the moon and in space until the R&D and production cost would be somewhere in the area of $500 billion. Same with Maglev technology. The monetary system is so limiting.
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.
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.
