[tehabe]

I'm still wondering how a neighbourhood will react if you want to build two massive tubes through it. I can't imagine people will like those tubes.

Yes, you could put them underground but this will increase your costs.

[david927]

Wasn't one of the ideas to put them through the existing highway infrastructure, elevated in the meridian?

[dredmorbius]

Hyperlink turning radius (at top speed) is on the order of 100s of km, due to g-forces. You don't have much routing flexibility.

Following the kinks of a 100 kph expressway is likely not feasible.

Alternatives are to slow down massively as you approach / traverse urban areas, but this further increases trip time, changes acceleration and energy needs, and reduces the already abysmally low net passenger throughput.

[tehabe]

Yeah, I'm still wondering for how long the Hyperloop can keep its high speed before it has to break again. This is already a big issue with high speed trains in Germany, so that some people say, why do we waste money on 300 kph trains which have to break after six minutes anyway. The energy needed to reach this speed is way too high and you don't save a lot of time either.

And with Hyperloop it will the same thing. It might work to go from LA to San Francisco without too many stops but Think about Boston to Washington DC.

[david927]

Ah, but the Hyperloop will allow for small, individual cars of maybe 8 people (I'm guessing). This means that you get in the car based on destination and it uses switches so that there are no in-transit stops.

Following the kinks of a 100 kph expressway is likely not feasible.

Again, my understanding was that this was part of the original TDD (SF to LA) and they found that it was, indeed, feasible.