Hyperloop would be dismissed like some undergrad's terrible school project if it weren't for the billionaire pushing it and the cult of personality that surrounds him.
There's only about a million reasons Musk's idea is ridiculous and needs to die. Here's a few of them. Most fundamentally, it's a technological "solution" to a political problem. The problems with high-speed rail have absolutely nothing to do with technology, and everything to do with politics; when high-speed rail is actually competently built and operated, it is nearly universally successful.
Moral of the story: Supposed "alternatives" to high-speed rail should be taken with a huge grain of salt when they're being floated by an automobile manufacturer.
Absolutely, advanced countries build really great high speed rail. I've traveled around Japan on the shinkansen, and it would be wonderful to have something equivalent to it here. Not much chance of that, though. If wikipedia is to be believed, the Acela averages 65 mph.
I think that you're writing off the hyperloop too quickly though, AECOM isn't going to sign on to something that's totally off-the-wall. It's probably doable.
Here's my analogy: most local public transportation in our cities could be handled with relatively inexpensive, flexible bus service, but a lot of municipalities are spending big money to build light rail. Why? People are snobs, and think that buses are for poor people. And, it turns out that light rail is pretty good for developing dense districts - the investment seems to work. Maybe the same is true for the hyperloop. Americans, being generally fucking stupid about public investment, just aren't willing to spend the money for a totally sensible mode of transportation, but they might be into a cool, space-age one.
light rail is being completed in denver and surrounding cities, and it works perfectly; high speed train is the only way to travel in europe...the hyperloop is like the concorde, an amusement for the rich
There was some previous discussion of this that you apparently missed. I think the reinvigoration of this idea is totally economic: various people looking for money to start working on it without regard for the practical problems and general unreality of the concept.
Kind of like military contractors - who cares if it works? Expensively problematic = gold mine.
Yup, missed that previous thread. Should have checked before I posted.
But, the critique David Cole is offering doesn't seem too terribly on target for the following reasons:
1. I don't think that Musk has the same worldview that the auto execs who dismantled commuter rail in this country had. I believe that he is sincere in his desire to develop energy efficient technologies - which necessarily means mass transit, not individually owned automobiles. I wish that the motivation was coming from the public sector, but its not.
2. The plans are very preliminary so it doesn't really matter if they show the stations in the suburbs. When the technology becomes viable, they can figure that stuff out. Maybe it works better between NY and Chicago or D.C. than on the Coast.
3. Being for the hyperloop is not the same as being opposed to high speed rail. High speed rail is awesome, and we should be ashamed that we don't have it. I think that a conversation about the hyperloop could open a discussion about appropriate mass transit - a topic that people just don't think about.
And, to your point, Miles. I'd rather have engineers spending time figuring out high speed transit than new and more efficient ways to immolate people. I think that its worth a shot.
Imaginary Weapons is a book by Sharon Weinberger that documents the race among various individuals for funding to pursue technology that a number of physicists thoroughly debunked. It was the imaginary image - in this case a nuclear hand grenade (maybe the stupidest idea ever) - that had Pentagon types and military industrial contractors in a frenzy. The hype - including the desperate need to prevent a hafnium gap (we can't let the Russians get it first!) - echoes that for the hyperloop. Imaginary is truly the best way to describe it.
It doesn't matter if they are blowing money on imaginary weapons or vacuum tube hypersonic transport as the public will never benefit. That is never the goal. High speed - a proven technology - is not worth pursuing just because Musk says his imaginary system is cheaper?
What Miles said. And for the record, California didn't "drop the ball" on high-speed rail. It's under construction as we speak. But large infrastructure projects of any sort are very complicated and take lots of time, and involve a lot of boring technical minutia that doesn't make for glossy renderings and clickbait headlines.
David, America as a nation has dropped the ball on high speed rail. We've got the Acela (medium speed at best), and the line in CA which will be completed in 2029, but that's it, right? Shameful shit. I work in architecture, I'm down for boring technical details, but saying that an idea is worthless because somebody sketching out a very preliminary plan put a terminal too far into the suburbs is small thinking.
Miles, Right now, there's no public money involved in the hyperloop, and as you can see from my posts, I'm a big supporter of high speed rail. Saying that an idea is bullshit early in the process is the sort of thinking that architects are supposed to avoid, I thought.
Sure, there are technical hurdles, but people can do amazing things. Maybe it won't look quite like what Musk is describing but there were two pneumatic rail lines in the 19th c. that worked - the Beach Pneumatic Transit in NYC (ran for 3 years) and the Crystal Palace Pneumatic Railway in London (2 months). Not pie in the sky.
And, maybe, it never becomes an everyday thing. Most of us will never get into outer space, but we've all benefited from the technology developed for the space program.
As for 19th century pneumatic rail lines, none of them were high speed let alone hypersonic or long distance. Not to mention the tech was entirely different. Pneumatic tubes use differences in pressure to move something, the Hyperloop is supposed to use linear induction motors and air bearings to move through a partial vacuum. The concept actually requires the equalization of pressure on both sides of the vehicle to reduce air resistance.
It's one thing to send mail darting around in a cylinder and a whole different thing to send human beings 400 miles at 800 miles an hour through a evacuated tube. What happens if there is a power failure, mechanical breakdown or natural disaster (earthquake)? Or should we say when ... going into space may actually be safer than riding this thing. You should also check your wiki link about human factors:
Even if the tube is initially smooth, ground shifting due to settling and ongoing seismic activity would inevitably cause distortion. At speeds approaching 900 feet per second (270 m/s), even 1 millimeter (0.039 in) deviations from a straight path would add considerable buffeting and vibration. With no provisions for passengers to stand, move within the capsule, use a restroom during the trip, or get assistance or relief in case of illness or motion sickness, the potential for an unpleasant experience would likely be higher than in any other popular form of public transport.
All good points...I would rather fly than ride this death trap...Musk is overlooking one big factor...people will be afraid to ride it. I would, despite the fact that I will go on the biggest roller coasters with no problem...This shit is scarier than the worst coaster...
I don't think that the wikipedia entry thought about shock absorbers. High speed rail has to mitigate buffeting and vibration - even the new elevators at 1 WTC do - not a deal killer.
Maybe you'd have to warn the incontinent that they won't be able to pee for 30 min., but because of the short travel time, I'd rather have a heart attack on it than on a flight. We accept the potential for mechanical breakdowns/power failures on aircraft - why is this different?
People barrel through tunnels on subways, unable to see their surroundings all the time. Have you ever taken the BART under SF Bay? Tunnels under incredible pressure, surrounded by mud, in an earthquake zone? Not really a big deal when you experience it, but it sure sounds scary.
Did you even read the article I linked to in my first comment? Hyperloop doesn't go from Los Angeles to San Francisco; it goes from a remote corner of the San Fernando Valley to a remote suburb in the East Bay. Even if everything works perfectly, the ride from city center to city center will take far longer than 30 minutes. In fact, regular high-speed rail will take less time from Los Angeles Union Station to the Transbay Center in downtown SF, with the added benefit of passengers being able to walk around, take a leak, and enjoy a drink in the lounge car. The best part about high-speed trains is that they don't require an entirely new infrastructure; they can operate just fine on conventional tracks while the tracks are upgraded to high-speed capabilities.
If the Beach Pneumatic Transit system was so successful, then why does every single subway line in NYC now use steel wheels on steel rails, with electric traction motors?
Sorry, but Hyperloop is completely ridiculous. I'm all in favor of new technology, but I'm even more in favor of basic critical thinking skills.
Yes, I did read it, and then dismissed it as nitpicking in one of my posts above. The technology isn't even viable yet, who cares where someone suggested the stations might be?
Acela is a high speed train on conventional tracks, right? How's that working out - 65 mph average speeds, on time for only 70% of its trips.. The thing that kills Amtrack as a reliable form of transportation is sharing rails with freight trains that have the right of way. CA's high-speed will use some conventional tracks, which will slow it down considerably at both ends. "Just fine" actually means "not very well compared to other countries." I want high speed rail - but on conventional tracks, we're still going to be a laughingstock.
Closing one's mind is not a critical thinking skill. As I said in one of my first posts, hearing about developments toward the hyperloop could be a great way to open a national conversation about our public transportation needs generally, including high speed rail.
Acela's shortcomings have nothing to do with the technology, and everything to do with the political decisions over the past 70 years to sabotage passenger rail. Hyperloop offers no solution to that. I'm not sure how much more clear I can make that. The sole purpose of shiny objects like Hyperloop is to distract from the conversation that needs to take place about public transportation, not to open it.
How do we open the conversation, if not with an attention grabbing, shiny thing? (which could be an awesome future technology, in addition to h.s. rail, not as an alternative.)
Yes, I did read it, and then dismissed it as nitpicking in one of my posts above.
It isn't nitpicking; it's basic fact-checking. Elon Musk has always had a vendetta against the California HSR project, and this is his attempt to sabotage it. Plain and simple.
The conversation about public transportation has been ongoing for years; you apparently just haven't been paying very close attention.
We accept the potential for mechanical breakdowns/power failures on aircraft - why is this different?
Airplanes, while removed from the ground, have the capability to land - even on water - where you can get out. Subways tubes and tunnels have room for passengers to exit pretty much everywhere. Once you're in the 400 mile long vacuum tube of the hyperloop you're in there until you get to the other end. The pressure difference and necessity of maintaining it makes passenger egress all but impossible at any point between stations. If there was an escape hatch it would have to be an air lock and you'd need oxygen just to get to it.
A little more critical thinking would be preferable to excessive consumption of Kool-Aid.
IMHO a train that can do avg 65 mph- AND have station that are well located- beats the $hit out of driving any day. Just getting affordable and convenient train transportation would be huge. Here on the east coast I have the choice between the Acela and the MBTA to get to Boston. They are both about the same speed and go to the same place. MBTA is cheaper. Acela is nicer. Both beat driving as long as they go where you want to go.
David - Yes the conversation has been going on for years, among a few folks who are interested in transit issues. (Not quite true, Illinois and Minnesota were ready to do a high speed line, but it got quashed by that idiot Walker.) I've been paying attention, and would be happy for a link explaining why you think the whole proposal is a vendetta of Musk's. But I still don't think that your blog post link is substantive.
I don't think that the average American citizen understands the advantages of a working train system, and there are no advocates out there with the power to grab their attention - Musk has that power, and using his idea to, I apologize - not start - but broaden the conversation, might allow rail advocates to reach critical mass.
Miles: repressurize the line and walk out, same as a subway. Maybe I don't have the science down, but I don't think that you do either. Why would so many engineers, including AECOM be wasting their time on the project if it were as impossible as you say?
I was hoping that this could be a good conversation, but true to Archinect form, its devolved into binary bickering, which isn't at all interesting.
Anonitect - Just stopping in long enough to support your thread, and appreciate the New Yorker article. I’ve taken great interest in trains and that article nails it. Would share my thoughts and things I’ve learned, but then someone would accuse me of being prejudiced against Arabs.
On the subject of train crashes, the Amtrak Thanksgiving crash a few years ago was the result of an engineer who blanked out and an automatic safety stopping system that didn't.
That system was installed so that they could reduce the number of engineers (and salaries, health and retirement benefits, etc.) to ONE.
While it doesn't get mentioned in the proposal, a 400 mile long line wouldn't only be accessible at its ends. At the very least, maintenance would require other means of accessing the tube, which could be used for egress as well, if the car stopped somehow. The design calls for low pressure, not a complete vacuum, so that's not unreasonable.
I don't know how the fuck I got into the position where I'm defending the plan, I just wanted to see if there was a variety of opinions about it. Instead, I got two blowhards patronizing me and dismissing an interesting idea out of hand. Great fucking fun.
So, to reiterate: Mr. Cole thinks that the hyperloop won't work because Elon Musk is an asshole, and Mr.Jaffe doesn't think it will work because he's smarter than the rest of us.
Meanwhile, there are hundreds of engineers working on the project, both Aecom and Oerlikon Leybold Vacuum, which worked on the Large Hadron Collider, are on board, and plans are in the works to build a test track starting next year.
Are there huge technical challenges? Absolutely. Maybe it's not viable, but to dismiss it because of politics or hubris is foolish and short-sighted.
1) It won't cost less to build than high-speed rail.
2) It won't be easier to build than high-speed rail.
3) It won't be faster than high-speed rail.
4) It won't be nearly as pleasant to ride as high-speed rail.
5) It will never get the same level of political support as high-speed rail.
6) It won't be as useful or as flexible as high-speed rail.
7) It won't be as safe as high-speed rail.
8) It's a deliberate attempt to sabotage high-speed rail by presenting a false choice.
And all that assumes that the concept works flawlessly from a technical point of view, which many people have serious doubts about.
You wanted different opinions, you got them. If you wanted uncritical praise for posting a link about a concept that was already debunked two years ago, you came to the wrong place.
1) You're not actually saying anything. You certainly aren't offering different opinions, you're just rehashing what has already been said and acknowledged. I asked you about Musk's "vendetta" a few posts back, you didn't.
2) Who debunked it? Please don't link to that stupid blog again. That's lazy. I've found lots of articles/posts by people who are highly critical of the proposal on technical grounds, yet it is still being worked on by serious people.
3) Why would I want praise? I want discussion and debate, not condescension and hubris.
My specific problems are that Hyperloop a) made up the cost projections, b) has awful passenger comfort, c) has very little capacity, and d) lies about energy consumption of conventional HSR. All of these come from Musk’s complex in which he must reinvent everything and ignore prior work done in the field; these also raise doubts about the systems safety that he claims is impeccable. [...]
There is no systematic attempt at figuring out standard practices for cost, or earthquake safety (about which the report is full of FUD about the risks of a “ground-based system”). There are no references for anything; they’re beneath the entrepreneur’s dignity. It’s fine if Musk thinks he can build certain structures for lower cost than is normal, or achieve better safety, but he should at least mention how. Instead, we get “it is expected” and “targeted” language. On Wikipedia, it would get hammered with “citation needed” and “avoid weasel words.”
But then, given the same internet on which Elon Musk made his bucks, people downloaded the proposal and tore it to shreds. Basically, the cost estimates are hype, the passenger capacity estimates are hype, the actual connection of LA to SF is hype, the passenger comfort claims are hype ... indeed, there are claims in the piece about the California HSR system that are outright lies. There is every reason to dub it the Hype-Loop.
Putting aside the fact that there’s no way you can build this for $6 billion and have a $20 ticket, the bigger issue is that this is no solution to the state’s transportation needs. 7.4 million people per year is fine. But the HSR system will carry as many as 117 million people per year. That’s an enormous difference. As California grows and as the price of oil soars, California needs a transportation system that can move not just a few million a year, but hundreds of millions a year. HSR can do that. The Hyperloop can’t. The Hyperloop also bypasses Silicon Valley and the cities of the Central Valley, despite the economic and environmental need especially in the Central Valley for a sustainable passenger rail option.
At projected capacity levels, the so-called Hyperloop would transport 840 people each hour, each paying $20. With capital, labor and maintenance costs factored in, Sperling said, “Those numbers, even in the most outlandish visionary way, do not make any sense at all. The whole technology is unproven. I know he’s a brilliant guy, but it just doesn’t pencil out.”
Now why is Elon Musk, who is not stupid, pushing a plan that looks suspiciously like the old debunked “personal rapid transit” crapola that Republicans and unscrupulous Greens keep pushing?
As far-sighted technology evangelism, the Hyperloop is laudable and deserves deeper discussion. As an intellectual idea, or the groundwork for some speculative fiction, it is fascinating. But as a shovel-ready infrastructure project, it is dead on arrival.
But if you find the whole idea a little out there, you're not alone. Architect and designer Craig Hodgetts, who's leading a one-year program at UCLA focused on developing the Hyperloop, recently described the concept as "insane" to The Daily Breeze—even as he insisted that physics behind it "are sound." More from the Breeze:
"It's pure science fiction," Hodgetts said gleefully. "Ray Bradbury would be the perfect person to explain this."
"that’s not to say the Hyperloop shouldn’t be explored or even built. I didn’t like it when critics attacked HSR merely because it was new to California and I won’t attack the Hyperloop, even if its cost assumptions are not realistic."
From your link "Even the Guy in Charge..."
" Hodgetts explains that his description of the project as "insane" was meant in jest, and that his reference to Bradbury was a literary one, not an engineering critique.
He says that some of the original engineering assumptions have needed revision, such as the tube diameter, suspension methods, and station designs. But he adds that such refinement isn't surprising considering the complexities of the project.
"To clarify, what I meant was that the yearnings of futurists and science-fiction aficionados would be fulfilled by the realization of the system," he says. "I certainly did not mean that the concept had anything resembling what I think of as 'fantasy fiction'—i.e., anti-gravity, teleportation, etc."
Thanks for the thorough debunking. And good job with the italics, that was a fun touch.
It's strange, I think, to see only resistance to a potential future technology on a site for architects. Aren't we supposed to be a profession of dreamers, interested in what the future might hold?
Instead, the profession sucks the joy out of us, turning us into boring, establishment naysayers.
hyperloop
Wired posted an article todayabout the future of the hyperloop. Maybe we can bypass high speed rail, which we totally dropped the ball on?
This rendering is totally goofy though, unless they're suggesting shuttering the Port of Oakland.
Hyperloop would be dismissed like some undergrad's terrible school project if it weren't for the billionaire pushing it and the cult of personality that surrounds him.
There's only about a million reasons Musk's idea is ridiculous and needs to die. Here's a few of them. Most fundamentally, it's a technological "solution" to a political problem. The problems with high-speed rail have absolutely nothing to do with technology, and everything to do with politics; when high-speed rail is actually competently built and operated, it is nearly universally successful.
Moral of the story: Supposed "alternatives" to high-speed rail should be taken with a huge grain of salt when they're being floated by an automobile manufacturer.
Absolutely, advanced countries build really great high speed rail. I've traveled around Japan on the shinkansen, and it would be wonderful to have something equivalent to it here. Not much chance of that, though. If wikipedia is to be believed, the Acela averages 65 mph.
I think that you're writing off the hyperloop too quickly though, AECOM isn't going to sign on to something that's totally off-the-wall. It's probably doable.
Here's my analogy: most local public transportation in our cities could be handled with relatively inexpensive, flexible bus service, but a lot of municipalities are spending big money to build light rail. Why? People are snobs, and think that buses are for poor people. And, it turns out that light rail is pretty good for developing dense districts - the investment seems to work. Maybe the same is true for the hyperloop. Americans, being generally fucking stupid about public investment, just aren't willing to spend the money for a totally sensible mode of transportation, but they might be into a cool, space-age one.
light rail is being completed in denver and surrounding cities, and it works perfectly; high speed train is the only way to travel in europe...the hyperloop is like the concorde, an amusement for the rich
There was some previous discussion of this that you apparently missed. I think the reinvigoration of this idea is totally economic: various people looking for money to start working on it without regard for the practical problems and general unreality of the concept.
Kind of like military contractors - who cares if it works? Expensively problematic = gold mine.
Yup, missed that previous thread. Should have checked before I posted.
But, the critique David Cole is offering doesn't seem too terribly on target for the following reasons:
1. I don't think that Musk has the same worldview that the auto execs who dismantled commuter rail in this country had. I believe that he is sincere in his desire to develop energy efficient technologies - which necessarily means mass transit, not individually owned automobiles. I wish that the motivation was coming from the public sector, but its not.
2. The plans are very preliminary so it doesn't really matter if they show the stations in the suburbs. When the technology becomes viable, they can figure that stuff out. Maybe it works better between NY and Chicago or D.C. than on the Coast.
3. Being for the hyperloop is not the same as being opposed to high speed rail. High speed rail is awesome, and we should be ashamed that we don't have it. I think that a conversation about the hyperloop could open a discussion about appropriate mass transit - a topic that people just don't think about.
And, to your point, Miles. I'd rather have engineers spending time figuring out high speed transit than new and more efficient ways to immolate people. I think that its worth a shot.
Imaginary Weapons is a book by Sharon Weinberger that documents the race among various individuals for funding to pursue technology that a number of physicists thoroughly debunked. It was the imaginary image - in this case a nuclear hand grenade (maybe the stupidest idea ever) - that had Pentagon types and military industrial contractors in a frenzy. The hype - including the desperate need to prevent a hafnium gap (we can't let the Russians get it first!) - echoes that for the hyperloop. Imaginary is truly the best way to describe it.
It doesn't matter if they are blowing money on imaginary weapons or vacuum tube hypersonic transport as the public will never benefit. That is never the goal. High speed - a proven technology - is not worth pursuing just because Musk says his imaginary system is cheaper?
What Miles said. And for the record, California didn't "drop the ball" on high-speed rail. It's under construction as we speak. But large infrastructure projects of any sort are very complicated and take lots of time, and involve a lot of boring technical minutia that doesn't make for glossy renderings and clickbait headlines.
David, America as a nation has dropped the ball on high speed rail. We've got the Acela (medium speed at best), and the line in CA which will be completed in 2029, but that's it, right? Shameful shit. I work in architecture, I'm down for boring technical details, but saying that an idea is worthless because somebody sketching out a very preliminary plan put a terminal too far into the suburbs is small thinking.
Miles, Right now, there's no public money involved in the hyperloop, and as you can see from my posts, I'm a big supporter of high speed rail. Saying that an idea is bullshit early in the process is the sort of thinking that architects are supposed to avoid, I thought.
Sure, there are technical hurdles, but people can do amazing things. Maybe it won't look quite like what Musk is describing but there were two pneumatic rail lines in the 19th c. that worked - the Beach Pneumatic Transit in NYC (ran for 3 years) and the Crystal Palace Pneumatic Railway in London (2 months). Not pie in the sky.
And, maybe, it never becomes an everyday thing. Most of us will never get into outer space, but we've all benefited from the technology developed for the space program.
As for 19th century pneumatic rail lines, none of them were high speed let alone hypersonic or long distance. Not to mention the tech was entirely different. Pneumatic tubes use differences in pressure to move something, the Hyperloop is supposed to use linear induction motors and air bearings to move through a partial vacuum. The concept actually requires the equalization of pressure on both sides of the vehicle to reduce air resistance.
It's one thing to send mail darting around in a cylinder and a whole different thing to send human beings 400 miles at 800 miles an hour through a evacuated tube. What happens if there is a power failure, mechanical breakdown or natural disaster (earthquake)? Or should we say when ... going into space may actually be safer than riding this thing. You should also check your wiki link about human factors:
Even if the tube is initially smooth, ground shifting due to settling and ongoing seismic activity would inevitably cause distortion. At speeds approaching 900 feet per second (270 m/s), even 1 millimeter (0.039 in) deviations from a straight path would add considerable buffeting and vibration. With no provisions for passengers to stand, move within the capsule, use a restroom during the trip, or get assistance or relief in case of illness or motion sickness, the potential for an unpleasant experience would likely be higher than in any other popular form of public transport.
All good points...I would rather fly than ride this death trap...Musk is overlooking one big factor...people will be afraid to ride it. I would, despite the fact that I will go on the biggest roller coasters with no problem...This shit is scarier than the worst coaster...
I don't think that the wikipedia entry thought about shock absorbers. High speed rail has to mitigate buffeting and vibration - even the new elevators at 1 WTC do - not a deal killer.
Maybe you'd have to warn the incontinent that they won't be able to pee for 30 min., but because of the short travel time, I'd rather have a heart attack on it than on a flight. We accept the potential for mechanical breakdowns/power failures on aircraft - why is this different?
People barrel through tunnels on subways, unable to see their surroundings all the time. Have you ever taken the BART under SF Bay? Tunnels under incredible pressure, surrounded by mud, in an earthquake zone? Not really a big deal when you experience it, but it sure sounds scary.
Did you even read the article I linked to in my first comment? Hyperloop doesn't go from Los Angeles to San Francisco; it goes from a remote corner of the San Fernando Valley to a remote suburb in the East Bay. Even if everything works perfectly, the ride from city center to city center will take far longer than 30 minutes. In fact, regular high-speed rail will take less time from Los Angeles Union Station to the Transbay Center in downtown SF, with the added benefit of passengers being able to walk around, take a leak, and enjoy a drink in the lounge car. The best part about high-speed trains is that they don't require an entirely new infrastructure; they can operate just fine on conventional tracks while the tracks are upgraded to high-speed capabilities.
If the Beach Pneumatic Transit system was so successful, then why does every single subway line in NYC now use steel wheels on steel rails, with electric traction motors?
Sorry, but Hyperloop is completely ridiculous. I'm all in favor of new technology, but I'm even more in favor of basic critical thinking skills.
Yes, I did read it, and then dismissed it as nitpicking in one of my posts above. The technology isn't even viable yet, who cares where someone suggested the stations might be?
Acela is a high speed train on conventional tracks, right? How's that working out - 65 mph average speeds, on time for only 70% of its trips.. The thing that kills Amtrack as a reliable form of transportation is sharing rails with freight trains that have the right of way. CA's high-speed will use some conventional tracks, which will slow it down considerably at both ends. "Just fine" actually means "not very well compared to other countries." I want high speed rail - but on conventional tracks, we're still going to be a laughingstock.
Closing one's mind is not a critical thinking skill. As I said in one of my first posts, hearing about developments toward the hyperloop could be a great way to open a national conversation about our public transportation needs generally, including high speed rail.
Acela's shortcomings have nothing to do with the technology, and everything to do with the political decisions over the past 70 years to sabotage passenger rail. Hyperloop offers no solution to that. I'm not sure how much more clear I can make that. The sole purpose of shiny objects like Hyperloop is to distract from the conversation that needs to take place about public transportation, not to open it.
Yes. Agreed, political problem.
How do we open the conversation, if not with an attention grabbing, shiny thing? (which could be an awesome future technology, in addition to h.s. rail, not as an alternative.)
Yes, I did read it, and then dismissed it as nitpicking in one of my posts above.
It isn't nitpicking; it's basic fact-checking. Elon Musk has always had a vendetta against the California HSR project, and this is his attempt to sabotage it. Plain and simple.
The conversation about public transportation has been ongoing for years; you apparently just haven't been paying very close attention.
We accept the potential for mechanical breakdowns/power failures on aircraft - why is this different?
Airplanes, while removed from the ground, have the capability to land - even on water - where you can get out. Subways tubes and tunnels have room for passengers to exit pretty much everywhere. Once you're in the 400 mile long vacuum tube of the hyperloop you're in there until you get to the other end. The pressure difference and necessity of maintaining it makes passenger egress all but impossible at any point between stations. If there was an escape hatch it would have to be an air lock and you'd need oxygen just to get to it.
A little more critical thinking would be preferable to excessive consumption of Kool-Aid.
David - Yes the conversation has been going on for years, among a few folks who are interested in transit issues. (Not quite true, Illinois and Minnesota were ready to do a high speed line, but it got quashed by that idiot Walker.) I've been paying attention, and would be happy for a link explaining why you think the whole proposal is a vendetta of Musk's. But I still don't think that your blog post link is substantive.
I don't think that the average American citizen understands the advantages of a working train system, and there are no advocates out there with the power to grab their attention - Musk has that power, and using his idea to, I apologize - not start - but broaden the conversation, might allow rail advocates to reach critical mass.
Miles: repressurize the line and walk out, same as a subway. Maybe I don't have the science down, but I don't think that you do either. Why would so many engineers, including AECOM be wasting their time on the project if it were as impossible as you say?
I was hoping that this could be a good conversation, but true to Archinect form, its devolved into binary bickering, which isn't at all interesting.
But, here's a good article: The Plot Against Trains (New Yorker)'
Anonitect - Just stopping in long enough to support your thread, and appreciate the New Yorker article. I’ve taken great interest in trains and that article nails it. Would share my thoughts and things I’ve learned, but then someone would accuse me of being prejudiced against Arabs.
repressurize the line and walk out
Since you clearly haven't even read Musk's proposal it's inane to consider pursing this discussion with you. So here you go:
http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_attachments/hyperloop_alpha3.pdf
Enjoy the Kool-Aid!
On the subject of train crashes, the Amtrak Thanksgiving crash a few years ago was the result of an engineer who blanked out and an automatic safety stopping system that didn't.
That system was installed so that they could reduce the number of engineers (and salaries, health and retirement benefits, etc.) to ONE.
While it doesn't get mentioned in the proposal, a 400 mile long line wouldn't only be accessible at its ends. At the very least, maintenance would require other means of accessing the tube, which could be used for egress as well, if the car stopped somehow. The design calls for low pressure, not a complete vacuum, so that's not unreasonable.
I don't know how the fuck I got into the position where I'm defending the plan, I just wanted to see if there was a variety of opinions about it. Instead, I got two blowhards patronizing me and dismissing an interesting idea out of hand. Great fucking fun.
So, to reiterate: Mr. Cole thinks that the hyperloop won't work because Elon Musk is an asshole, and Mr.Jaffe doesn't think it will work because he's smarter than the rest of us.
Meanwhile, there are hundreds of engineers working on the project, both Aecom and Oerlikon Leybold Vacuum, which worked on the Large Hadron Collider, are on board, and plans are in the works to build a test track starting next year.
Are there huge technical challenges? Absolutely. Maybe it's not viable, but to dismiss it because of politics or hubris is foolish and short-sighted.
No, the hyperloop won't work because:
1) It won't cost less to build than high-speed rail.
2) It won't be easier to build than high-speed rail.
3) It won't be faster than high-speed rail.
4) It won't be nearly as pleasant to ride as high-speed rail.
5) It will never get the same level of political support as high-speed rail.
6) It won't be as useful or as flexible as high-speed rail.
7) It won't be as safe as high-speed rail.
8) It's a deliberate attempt to sabotage high-speed rail by presenting a false choice.
And all that assumes that the concept works flawlessly from a technical point of view, which many people have serious doubts about.
You wanted different opinions, you got them. If you wanted uncritical praise for posting a link about a concept that was already debunked two years ago, you came to the wrong place.
David-
1) You're not actually saying anything. You certainly aren't offering different opinions, you're just rehashing what has already been said and acknowledged. I asked you about Musk's "vendetta" a few posts back, you didn't.
2) Who debunked it? Please don't link to that stupid blog again. That's lazy. I've found lots of articles/posts by people who are highly critical of the proposal on technical grounds, yet it is still being worked on by serious people.
3) Why would I want praise? I want discussion and debate, not condescension and hubris.
Loopy Ideas Are Fine, If You’re an Entrepreneur
My specific problems are that Hyperloop a) made up the cost projections, b) has awful passenger comfort, c) has very little capacity, and d) lies about energy consumption of conventional HSR. All of these come from Musk’s complex in which he must reinvent everything and ignore prior work done in the field; these also raise doubts about the systems safety that he claims is impeccable. [...]
There is no systematic attempt at figuring out standard practices for cost, or earthquake safety (about which the report is full of FUD about the risks of a “ground-based system”). There are no references for anything; they’re beneath the entrepreneur’s dignity. It’s fine if Musk thinks he can build certain structures for lower cost than is normal, or achieve better safety, but he should at least mention how. Instead, we get “it is expected” and “targeted” language. On Wikipedia, it would get hammered with “citation needed” and “avoid weasel words.”
Using the Hype-Loop to Understand the California HSR System
But then, given the same internet on which Elon Musk made his bucks, people downloaded the proposal and tore it to shreds. Basically, the cost estimates are hype, the passenger capacity estimates are hype, the actual connection of LA to SF is hype, the passenger comfort claims are hype ... indeed, there are claims in the piece about the California HSR system that are outright lies. There is every reason to dub it the Hype-Loop.
Hyping the Hyperloop
Putting aside the fact that there’s no way you can build this for $6 billion and have a $20 ticket, the bigger issue is that this is no solution to the state’s transportation needs. 7.4 million people per year is fine. But the HSR system will carry as many as 117 million people per year. That’s an enormous difference. As California grows and as the price of oil soars, California needs a transportation system that can move not just a few million a year, but hundreds of millions a year. HSR can do that. The Hyperloop can’t. The Hyperloop also bypasses Silicon Valley and the cities of the Central Valley, despite the economic and environmental need especially in the Central Valley for a sustainable passenger rail option.
Economists don't believe the Hyperloop
At projected capacity levels, the so-called Hyperloop would transport 840 people each hour, each paying $20. With capital, labor and maintenance costs factored in, Sperling said, “Those numbers, even in the most outlandish visionary way, do not make any sense at all. The whole technology is unproven. I know he’s a brilliant guy, but it just doesn’t pencil out.”
Come Saturday Morning: Yup, Hyperloop's a Joke
Now why is Elon Musk, who is not stupid, pushing a plan that looks suspiciously like the old debunked “personal rapid transit” crapola that Republicans and unscrupulous Greens keep pushing?
Perhaps because, just as with PRT, the plan was crafted by people who, for various reasons, are against true mass transit (such as, oh, the head of a car company), and who want to use a fake mass transit plan to attack and destroy an actual mass transit plan?
Sorry, Elon Musk – your Hyperloop is going nowhere
As far-sighted technology evangelism, the Hyperloop is laudable and deserves deeper discussion. As an intellectual idea, or the groundwork for some speculative fiction, it is fascinating. But as a shovel-ready infrastructure project, it is dead on arrival.
Even The Guy In Charge Of Hyperloop Design Says Elon Musk's Vision Is Insane
But if you find the whole idea a little out there, you're not alone. Architect and designer Craig Hodgetts, who's leading a one-year program at UCLA focused on developing the Hyperloop, recently described the concept as "insane" to The Daily Breeze—even as he insisted that physics behind it "are sound." More from the Breeze:
"It's pure science fiction," Hodgetts said gleefully. "Ray Bradbury would be the perfect person to explain this."
From "Hyping the Hyperloop"
"that’s not to say the Hyperloop shouldn’t be explored or even built. I didn’t like it when critics attacked HSR merely because it was new to California and I won’t attack the Hyperloop, even if its cost assumptions are not realistic."
From your link "Even the Guy in Charge..."
" Hodgetts explains that his description of the project as "insane" was meant in jest, and that his reference to Bradbury was a literary one, not an engineering critique.
He says that some of the original engineering assumptions have needed revision, such as the tube diameter, suspension methods, and station designs. But he adds that such refinement isn't surprising considering the complexities of the project.
"To clarify, what I meant was that the yearnings of futurists and science-fiction aficionados would be fulfilled by the realization of the system," he says. "I certainly did not mean that the concept had anything resembling what I think of as 'fantasy fiction'—i.e., anti-gravity, teleportation, etc."
Thanks for the thorough debunking. And good job with the italics, that was a fun touch.
Jaffe: It's technically problematic.
Cole: It's politically motivated.
Jaffe: It ignores safety and human factors.
Cole: It's economically unrealistic.
Jaffe: It's economically motivated.
Cole: It's unable to serve the need.
anonitect: It's new and shiny!
You win.
It's strange, I think, to see only resistance to a potential future technology on a site for architects. Aren't we supposed to be a profession of dreamers, interested in what the future might hold?
Instead, the profession sucks the joy out of us, turning us into boring, establishment naysayers.
I wish Musk would drop the price of his Model S by 25k so then my wife would let me buy one!
A cover for Emilio Salgari's "Wonders of 2000" (1907)
(from Imaginary Cites twitter feed.)
^ Nothing suggestive about that.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.