If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
From Los Angeles to San Francisco in 30 minutes
Hi Viatologists,
The Hyperloop is one idea getting thrown out there for high-speed travel. Passengers are pushed through air tubes from one location to the next, traveling at speeds of 500+ MPH. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2MBnAMLzdo This type of solution, in theory, would make it very fast to move between Los Angeles and San Francisco. Imagine a 30 minute commute. Proponents argue that the Hyperloop could borrow the right-of-way along Interstate 5 and Interstate 580, where it could be elevated from freeway traffic. While I'm a huge proponent of high-speed rail in California, there are three distinct advantages of the Hyperloop which (in theory) make it a better candidate for statewide travel. First, there is the option to transport vehicles in the Hyperloop. Imagine driving your car to the San Fernando Valley, then loading your car into the Hyperloop. 30 minutes later, you're in the San Francisco East Bay with access to three Interstates (238/580/880). If you're traveling sans auto, you can pick up BART and continue on. Second, the Hyperloop will largely be powered by solar panels. Much of the energy required will derive from the sun, pushing passengers from one place to the next with a minimal carbon footprint. Even for a state that uses cleaner natural gas, moving to solar power would be a tremendous leap forward for long-distance travel. Lastly, there is the cost. In theory, it would cost less than $10 billion to create a Hyperloop between LA and SF. In all practicality, the cost would be far from ideal. Let's say the Hyperloop's cost balloons to 200% over the initial estimate, similar to what's happened w/ California's high-speed rail. This would be just a $20 billion price tag versus the $70+ billion being created for high-speed rail. If deployed, the California Hyperloop would be an excellent bellwether for other metropolitan areas around the world. But let's see if this idea takes off. Politics would likely slow down the development. Though if something like there were to be completed, I definitely would enjoy the opportunity of eating breakfast at the Embarcardero, followed by a late morning hike at Griffith Park. Cheers, Carl Rogers "Environment first, transportology second" ******** Worldwide Transportation Library (WWTL): http://wwtl.info http://m.wwtl.info [Mobile] +1 201.676.0185 [Press] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Complete coverage of international roads and railways. Since 2000, we have offered several photographs, videos and Virtual 360 captures -- to each viatologist & transportologist. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ******** |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
From Los Angeles to San Francisco in 30 minutes
On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 14:10:34 -0800 (PST), Carl Rogers wrote:
> Hi Viatologists, > > The Hyperloop is one idea getting thrown out there for high-speed travel. Passengers are pushed through air tubes from one location to the next, traveling at speeds of 500+ MPH. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2MBnAMLzdo > > This type of solution, in theory, would make it very fast to move between Los Angeles and San Francisco. Imagine a 30 minute commute. Proponents argue that the Hyperloop could borrow the right-of-way along Interstate 5 and Interstate 580, where it could be elevated from freeway traffic. > > While I'm a huge proponent of high-speed rail in California, there are three distinct advantages of the Hyperloop which (in theory) make it a better candidate for statewide travel. > > First, there is the option to transport vehicles in the Hyperloop. Imagine driving your car to the San Fernando Valley, then loading your car into the Hyperloop. 30 minutes later, you're in the San Francisco East Bay with access to three Interstates (238/580/880). If you're traveling sans auto, you can pick up BART and continue on. > > Second, the Hyperloop will largely be powered by solar panels. Much of the energy required will derive from the sun, pushing passengers from one place to the next with a minimal carbon footprint. Even for a state that uses cleaner natural gas, moving to solar power would be a tremendous leap forward for long-distance travel. > > Lastly, there is the cost. In theory, it would cost less than $10 billion to create a Hyperloop between LA and SF. In all practicality, the cost would be far from ideal. Let's say the Hyperloop's cost balloons to 200% over the initial estimate, similar to what's happened w/ California's high-speed rail. This would be just a $20 billion price tag versus the $70+ billion being created for high-speed rail. > > If deployed, the California Hyperloop would be an excellent bellwether for other metropolitan areas around the world. But let's see if this idea takes off. Politics would likely slow down the development. Though if something like there were to be completed, I definitely would enjoy the opportunity of eating breakfast at the Embarcardero, followed by a late morning hike at Griffith Park. > > Cheers, > What goes around comes around. Actually, that was the basis of the New York city subway system. An inventor had come up with the idea of transporting people in pods underground. Using compressed air. The city built a 3 mile test section and the damn thing actully worked. However, the conception of a pod moving at 800mph ain't gonna fly. pardon the pun. Why? Because most people could not withstand the force such movement would generate at ground level. Now if the design of such a device might happen to include a mag lev system, then maybe it might work. To make it more viable, how about a monorail mag-lev? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
From Los Angeles to San Francisco in 30 minutes
On Sunday, November 17, 2013 8:34:16 PM UTC-8, richard wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 14:10:34 -0800 (PST), Carl Rogers wrote: > > > <snip> > What goes around comes around. > Actually, that was the basis of the New York city subway system. > An inventor had come up with the idea of transporting people in pods > underground. Using compressed air. > > The city built a 3 mile test section and the damn thing actully worked. > However, the conception of a pod moving at 800mph ain't gonna fly. > pardon the pun. > > Why? Because most people could not withstand the force such movement would > generate at ground level. <snip> ??? What force would there be at ground level but not up higher? The only "force" felt by the passengers would be g forces involved in acceleration/deceleration - once up to speed (or slowed down) the passengers would feel no force at all. Harry K |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
California 480 at the Port of San Francisco | Carl Rogers | Driving | 1 | October 30th 09 07:44 PM |
Reaching San Francisco from Los Angeles, no freeway? | Carl ROGÉRS | Driving | 101 | November 28th 07 03:33 AM |
FS '01 Odyssey EX near San Francisco | Honda | 0 | July 24th 06 09:20 AM | |
FS '02 4WD CRV LX near San Francisco | Honda | 0 | July 15th 06 06:22 AM | |
Car show pix, near San Francisco | Karld | Antique cars | 0 | May 22nd 05 03:18 PM |