If *this* was an option for your route, would you choose it or stick to flying? (HyperLoop)

[Roland99]

imho, airlines would either have to invest or offer a competing, similar product or potentially face obsolescence.

*Assuming* cost is on par with airfare, I'd choose this any time.

[Ferrets are Cool]

1. The cost would be staggering. A train service like Japan's would be a better option.

[Roland99]

3. Not necessarily....

Investopedia link

Undertaking a project like the proposed Hyperloop can be a large financial burden. It is already anticipated that the 350-mile trip between Los Angeles and San Francisco will cost $20 each way. However, to build the extravagant tube system, Musk estimates its costs will be between $6 billion and $7.5 billion.3 His $6 billion estimate is for two one way tubes and 40 capsules with no cargo space, while the higher end of the estimate would carry cargo.

With tubes departing every 30 seconds and carrying 28 passengers each, a single tube would be able to transport 7.4 million people per year. By simple multiplication, the proposed two-tube structure could carry roughly 15 million people per year. At $20 per ride and an estimated 15 million trips per year, the Hyperloop would have the potential to gross $300 million in annual revenue.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/09/richard-branson-virgin-hyperloop-tickets-to-cost-no-more-than-high-speed-rail.html

Virgin Hyperloop One, which Branson has been chairman of since December last year, is “very close” to deploying the technology in India and is in talks with Dubai and Saudi Arabia about rolling out the technology in the Middle East as well, Branson told CNBC at the annual Barclays Asia Forum in Singapore.

...

Speaking about the price of Hyperloop One fares, Branson said: “It will be no more than a high-speed trainline ticket, and potentially we’ll be able to bring the price down further than that.”

[Ferrets are Cool]

7. Sorry, I should have been clearer...the cost of construction will be staggering.

[Alpeduez21]

12. I'm not sure I agree with that

?t=48

[Maraya1969]

14. I don't think that's a bullet train. I've been on a bullet train in Japan and it

was lovely. And everyone had their own seat.

[LuvNewcastle]

2. I would definitely be taking that.

I hate flying. It's so cramped and people seem to be in a bad mood when they're flying. People are able to move around on trains and go eat and look at the scenery in the observation car. Taking the train is just a better experience, usually, and would be a lot more popular if it were quicker. Increase the speed and you'll see train use skyrocket.

[Roland99]

5. They're estimating speeds at 670-760mph. Highest yet achieved is 240mph

Even at 300-400mph, likely much more efficient than flying. No taxiing, no waiting to pull back from the gate, no having to be there 1-2 hours before departure....

[LuvNewcastle]

6. That would be sweet! Sign me up.

[Midnightwalk]

18. And no weather delays

Including the non-local ones that back up the entire system. They are fuel efficient too.

The technical and political hurdles are still large. I’m hoping and waiting for the first real project to get built. A lot will be learned and we’ll see whether it takes off. Maintenance and repairs worry me.

I’ll be surprised if the 20 dollar one way ticket holds, but it would be attractive at the same price as a plane ticket. 20 bucks was the suggested price in a white paper, but it always winds up more complicated and cost overruns are likely both because of new technology and because it’s new construction. In my opinion.

The price tag for this technology is low compared to new military technology. This seems to me to be a better investment.

[Maraya1969]

15. I used to take the train from NJ to FL when I was afraid to fly and I had a lot of

really nice experiences on it. I used to hang out in the club car and meet all sorts of interesting people.

[LuvNewcastle]

16. I took the train from here in Gulfport, Miss. to Los Angeles one year.

I went all the way to San Francisco on that trip, but took the bus from L.A. to S.F. I enjoyed my experience on the train, too. I brought plenty of snacks for the trip, so I didn't have to buy that many meals. I didn't get a room either, just slept in my seat. It's a great experience; everyone should try it at least once.

[marble falls]

4. Why?

[Celerity]

8. I would so take that. Also, it looks like obesity was cured by this era, lolol.

[uncle ray]

9. remember what airline marketing looked like in the 70's?

i'd be prepared for reality to be a little different.

[MineralMan]

10. California? L.A. to S.F.?

Nope. The route would necessarily travel near the San Andreas Fault for the entire trip.

Very bad investment, and I wouldn't take it. I'd fly.

[SKKY]

13. I would choose this over flying every day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

For sure.

[hunter]

17. If I was Emperor of the Earth I'd enforce a universal 50 Kilometre per hour speed limit...

... for all mechanical forms of transport.

The only exception would be emergency services vehicles, but only for limited distances. I might also make exceptions for sailboats and bicycles.

The phaser arrays of my space fortress would destroy any vehicle violating my universal speed limit as soon as it was safe to do so. Looking out the window of an airplane a speed limit violator might see the wings cut off as soon as their plane landed and came to a halt.

World travel would still be possible on slow boats and railroads. There would be lots of time to get to know your fellow passengers.

In a way I'd be mirroring the benefits of the actual universal speed limit, which is the speed of light. In universes where faster-than-light travel is possible plague species similar to humans trash everything, causing mass extinction events wherever they go. A ban on faster-than-light travel keeps them confined to their home worlds until they either destroy themselves or learn good manners.

But I'm not one to talk... I like fast too. When I was young and foolish I once drove a big motorcycle from the California coast to Death Valley averaging more than 100 mph.

[edhopper]

19. As with air travel

it's not the actual flight that cost time. For this you need a large infrastructure for getting people to the entry point and from the end point or at least giant parking facilities. You also need ticketing, security, baggage handling, etc...
The pinch points of flying are before take off and after landing. It will be the same with this.
And unlike flying a single mechanical failure will shut down the whole system.

I don't see why this, which has a limited passenger capacity and massive building costs, is better than high speed rail, which every other modern country has.

[obamanut2012]

20. I hate flying -- I would do this in a minute

If it was, say $400 instead of $250 for plane fare, I would pay the extra for this.