| > It's important to look at the hyperloop in the context in which it was proposed. I don't think it really is, because the proposal was a comically unserious one designed to generate interest in the underlying technology. The route proposed in the paper as a supposed alternative to HSR which has termini outside of the immediate area of the population centers which it notionally connects would never be useful and will never get built. OTOH, the interest the technology has drawn from that splashy initial PR campaign means enough people are working to develop it that that, if anything like it is viable, one or more commercially-viable variants will likely be ready for Musk's Mars colonies. > On paper, it's better than the high-speed rail in every way. Cheaper, faster and with less pollution. Its only "cheaper" because the proposal both made unrealistic assumptions about real estate costs and avoided much of the real estate costs by not terminating any place with useful transit access to the population centers at either terminus. Unlike HSR, which not only terminates near the population centers, but includes as part of the same project improvements in the local connecting transit systems. The proposed Hyperloop route was the high-tech version of a bridge-to-nowhere. |
It's supposed to be an alternative to a short airplane flight, so the latter assumption isn't so bad.