[JDDunn9]

Related: http://quora.com/Will-Hyperloop-One’s-Hyperloop-product-work...

I think the deal breaker is the high speeds, which require a much straighter track and much larger turn radius (410ft for a train, ~4.6 mi. for HL). That means a lot of tunneling through mountains and bulldozing expensive buildings. Land is the biggest expense in these projects.

I'm more hopeful of NASA's current work trying to reduce the sonic boom on airplanes. Flying high solves the air resistance problem, and going in a straight line isn't a problem up there.

[sunstone]

The problem with flights is the time and trouble spent getting to and getting through airports so the flight time has to be long enough to justify the wasted time.

[ianburrell]

Hyperloop has same problem as flying with terminals being located away from the city. With Hyperloop, the issue is that would require expensive right-of-way or tunnels to bring it into the center of the city. Which is why the initial proposal had end in San Fernando Valley, an hour from LA.

High speed rail has the big advantage that it can use existing tracks, at slower speed, to reach the center city train stations.

[jacobolus]

The other problem with flights is that it’s incredibly carbon polluting, compared to trains.

[iamcreasy]

I remember Elon Musk saying, at Hyperloop POD design weekend, Hyperloop is for short distance travel, because in short flights planes spends most of it's time in ascend or descend.

And for air travel, I think suborbital flights are definitely the future.

[CapitalistCartr]

Exactly. HL is for 200-1000 km. distances. Suborbital is for intercontinental. By the way, getting to orbit takes an amount of fuel similar to flying USA to Australia. Once we stop throwing the planes away . . In between those distances is flying.