At $20 a ticket, 28 passengers a car, a car every 2 minutes, and 2 cars (1 going in each direction), running 24/7 with no interruptions, it should only take… 20 years before it breaks even. This is good thing because there’s no way that $20 ticket will hold because:
During rush hour, generously from 5am-9am, only 13,440 can use it for commute. 80,640 a day. Tokyo services 8.7 million people in its metro. Moscow 6.6 million. Seoul 5.6 million. Shanghai 7 million. Beijing 6.4 million. NYC 5 million. Being the lucky 13,440 who NEED to get from SF to LA with money on the line, they’ll be willing to pony up a lot more than $20.
If you don’t view it as a commute and simply as a conveyance between the two cities, right now there are 1000+ (1042) flights for today between LAX or Burbank and SFO or Oakland. A first class ticket is $1,000. A regular ticket is between 100 and 200 dollars.
At 2 grand a ride, it would take only a couple of months for them to recoup their money assuming there’s a demand for it.
Why? It’s elevated. The size of the pylons is easily calculated. Because there are no externally moving parts, there’s no need for any special extra clearance. It will also be almost silent.
No one is suggesting a 2.5 hour journey. In fact, the paper specifically says that the concept is intended for mid-length routes like SF->LA. That’s 35 minutes. Longer journeys will be by plane.
Psychology is as important as physics. People aren’t going to like having pylons installed alongside the freeway.
That’s assuming there’s a shoulder in the first place. I don’t know that part of I-5, but farther south it’s not always there.
Ah. I got confused with this in the article: " that high-speed rail system would be only slightly cheaper than flying — and would take about twice as long, at 2 hours, 40 minutes". Of course, that was talking about high-speed rail, not the proposed tube.
I guess 35 min would be (barely) acceptable in terms of no-bathroom-breaks. You’d have to post in very big letters at embarkation points that there are no bathrooms on board, though
There are many stretches around here with concrete barriers instead of a shoulder, mere inches away from the line, and for miles at a time. It’s not that big an issue. I doubt the intent is for the pylons to be that close to the road, anyway.
True, but then you have to buy land. Little patches, but lots of them.
I wonder if it would be better if you could drive your car into the transport pod?
Pay $100, say, to make the trip in your car and get there with a full tank.
Are we concerned that he’s running this thing right along the San Andreas fault? Why not do the first one between, say, Chicago and St. Louis or the Twin Cities?
I think most people can handle 35 minutes. Between the taxiing and climb, most plane flights are about that long between your last chance at the airport and when the seat belt sign dings off.
The speed is crucial to the whole system. If it’s much longer, you need bathrooms, and more upright seating, and food service, and all kinds of stuff that turn it back into a plane or train. The cost would bloat by an order of magnitude and you’d be back to the beginning. The concept only works if it stays focused on a fairly narrow (but useful) niche.
The tube “floats” between pylons. Because the forces on it are so low, you design it so that the tube can shift in all directions (with some limits). For small earthquakes, the passengers would feel less movement than on the ground. For large earthquakes, there should be enough time to brake all the capsules to a halt. Just about any other ground transportation (but especially HSR) is going to be more affected by a large earthquake.
I’m reading through the PDF- he says the system would have airport-style security screenings.
I was imagining a transport system more like a bus or trolley, where you could just go get on the thing and go.
I’m not going to be strip searched (slight exaggeration) for a daily commute.
SO he has to develop high-speed, high-accuracy screening of passengers somehow.
That is one of the design proposals. The cost is a bit higher, but not by a whole lot.
I suspect that the details on buying lots of little patches of land have been worked out already by the wind power industry. And besides, for huge sections of I-5, it’s not necessary.
Personally, I see no need for TSA-style screening (well, I think it’s useless for planes as well, but that’s a different topic). Someone with a bomb can kill a couple dozen people at most, would cause fairly minimal damage to the structure, and have almost no risk to people on the ground. Riding a bus carries more risk.
Even so, the non-peaky nature of the system means that the screening lines should run more smoothly.
True enough. And if you can put wind and solar generators on top, it might make enough money that people would go along who would otherwise object.
How tall is it going to be? I’m not seeing a height, but the pics make it look like 50-100 feet.
That’s possible in some areas but may be a problem in others- can the tube be lowered where needed?
The PDF says 20 ft “whenever possible” (I think that some of the illustrations are not to scale). That’s enough to cross most roads. They’ll be taller in hilly areas or if there are other obstacles.
I don’t think there’s any reason it can’t be lowered as long as it doesn’t need to make grade crossings. Keeping it elevated has lots of advantages, though.
The plan is to cover the entire surface with solar panels, which will provide more than enough to power the system.
I sort of choked on that too. I think he was meaning 80% speed of sound. I will grant him misspeaking in his eagerness to get his message out.
But the other poster is correct, I can remember seeing this mentioned at RIT in a seminar on possible transportation improvements back in the day.
[/QUOTE]
Forget the speed of sound, I’m more concerned with the fact that a scientist knows squat about 1900.
