KCRag Forum

This looks promising...

http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/n ... posal.html

So MODOT needs to be careful not to invest too much $ for a far out technology. They have yet to do a convincing proof-of-concept outside a small Nevada test that doesn't really demonstrate the claims. And while they'll sell it to public/politicians as a people mover, the reality is that the Feds may only allow for freight movement at first (or should anyway), perhaps for many years. KC and STL don't exactly have freight movement connections compared to KC<>Dallas/LA/Chicago and Mexico, though could improve it.

Now if Hyperloop carpetbaggers are willing to take the bulk of the $ risk, then MO should definitely go for it.

Their 2020 timeframe seems so insanely optimistic to be laughable.

The streetcar took 6.5 years end to end to build and that was a known process and technology. This will easily be 4x their timeline best case. Best case is if they have a working system to copy. I would double that number to 8x

For best case- If they decide where in 2017 nothing could be approved until 2018. It will take 3-5 years just to get all the easements and land purchases and lawsuits and contracts completed, another 5-7 for construction, followed by 2-3 years for testing and certification.

This is a publicity stunt to find out what regions have people interested in the tech, much like Google Fiber. Then they can actually start any discussions. As they said, red tape is their biggest barrier and cooperative states and cities would help them a ton.

That's 2028-2030. Realistically, more like 2039-2049.

Some factors to consider with Google Fiber in KC... the $ risk for City wasn't much, the technology was proven, GF invested a huge amount in KC fiber infrastructure that will still be useful even if they sell and it forced all other ISPs to upgrade. KC is probably the most competitive ISP market in US because of GF presence. But Hyperloop failing wouldn't have the positive side effects than if GF fails (and it may). However like GF, if the risk for city/state is low, is maybe worth going for it.

Don't you have to travel in almost a straight line too?

Anyway, no government should be spending any money on this locally. So far this is all vaporware.

WoodDraw wrote:Don't you have to travel in almost a straight line too?

Anyway, no government should be spending any money on this locally. So far this is all vaporware.

yes. it's like high speed rail times 100. the columbia "loop" is laughable. you can't go that fast and go so many places. i'll check back on this when they actually acquire the right-of-way or an easement for the elevated system. that shit ain't free.

We need to rebuild I70 between here and STL anyway. Could this be added to that project fairly cheaply.

If Hyperloop is willing to take bulk of risk, MODOT could take advantage of it with this potential scenario... One of the I-70 improvement options is to build a separate toll highway North of current I70. MODOT establishes right-of-ways (ROW) for the Hyperloop project knowing it very well may fail. If Hyperloop investors cover much of costs and it fails, MODOT's internal contingency plan could be to use the ROW of failed Hyperloop for a new I70 highway. And MODOT in this scenario could plan for enough land in ROW so that if Hyperloop succeeds in some form, there is still enough land for a new I70.

Or some similar scenario of the above. Point being, use Hyperloop for the ultimate goal of a new I70. But only if Hyperloop investors take bulk of risk and any investment MODOT makes towards Hyperloop applies to a new I70.

Hyperloop is just 20 foot high support pillars (on average). It could run down the median of I-70. That's the I-5 plan in California.

earthling wrote:If Hyperloop is willing to take bulk of risk, MODOT could take advantage of it with this potential scenario... One of the I-70 improvement options is to build a separate toll highway North of current I70. MODOT establishes right-of-ways (ROW) for the Hyperloop project knowing it very well may fail. If Hyperloop investors cover much of costs and it fails, MODOT's internal contingency plan could be to use the ROW of failed Hyperloop for a new I70 highway. And MODOT in this scenario could plan for enough land in ROW so that if Hyperloop succeeds in some form, there is still enough land for a new I70

Or some similar scenario of the above. Point being, use Hyperloop for the ultimate goal of a new I70. But only if Hyperloop investors take bulk of risk and any investment MODOT makes towards Hyperloop applies to a new I70.

Why can't they acquire ROW for proven technologies like Higherspeed rail?

If a rail service provider is willing to step up with some investment like Hyperloop investors appear to (maybe) be doing, then sure.

But MO is just one of 30-something candidates. Hyperloop is likely to select a state/entity that is naive enough to take on most of the risk for an over-hyped concept.

earthling wrote:... Hyperloop is likely to select a state/entity that is naive enough to take on most of the risk for an over-hyped concept.

So you're saying there's a chance?

I almost added something to that effect.

I mean the #1 criteria for this will be which state will give us incentives and free land and so on.

And you run the risk that they start something, go bankrupt, or the technology doesn't work. -insert Simpsons monorail episode here-

Hyperloop is about a 10% of the cost of HSR to build and maintain (theoretically). KC to St. Louis will have to happen for any real cross country route but is a low visibility route if it fails compared to New York to DC, or Houston to Dallas. Low risk, high possible return, smart investment.

shinatoo wrote:Hyperloop is about a 10% of the cost of HSR to build and maintain (theoretically). KC to St. Louis will have to happen for any real cross country route but is a low visibility route if it fails compared to New York to DC, or Houston to Dallas. Low risk, high possible return, smart investment.

Kind of buried the lede there with the "theoretically". I'm all about them building it, just not willing to give them any money until I see a business model and proof of concept.

shinatoo wrote:Hyperloop is about a 10% of the cost of HSR to build and maintain (theoretically). KC to St. Louis will have to happen for any real cross country route but is a low visibility route if it fails compared to New York to DC, or Houston to Dallas. Low risk, high possible return, smart investment.

10% of the cost? I don't think so.

It has 100% of the track cost in the tubes and then some and requires pylons for large sections since it can't go up and down hills at super fast speed without it feeling like a rollercoaster. So the cost immediately is much higher.

Maintenance costs way more because you can't have a 100 foot section sink in the middle and form a slight U. Pylons are hard to keep even because each one can settle independently. Or else they're looking at more traditional heavy bridges. If it shifts, forms a crack and a vacuum tube busts you can't operate until it's fixed. Pushing a vacuum against a crack could cause a breach. (think reverse Apollo 13) Expansion in heat is a much bigger deal too.

First off, it's not a vacuum, it's a low pressure tube. There is no way to maintain a complete vacuum over such a large system.

Second, high end estimates for Hyperloop between San Francisco and LA are in the 8 billion range. The HSR on the same route is estimated at around 70 billion. Break down the math, because big numbers are just made up of a bunch of small numbers.

Third, California is estimating a cost of $50-60 for a one way ticket and will still need subsidies. Hyper loop is estimating $20 one way, and that's with turning a profit.

Fourth, we build bridges that are earthquake resistant all the time now, with the same tech that will be used in the Hyperloop.

Fifth, hyperloop uses mag-lav for initial acceleration and a combination of forced air and maglav to eliminate friction and heat related issues.

Sixth, Elon Musk is smarter than you an I combined and has proven success with crazy ideas. See SpaceX, Tesla, Paypal.

Everything is theoretical until you actual build it.

Don't forget the need for TWO tubes - one in each direction.

kcjak wrote:Don't forget the need for TWO tubes - one in each direction.

Who forgot that?