KCRag Forum

an important reminder that they haven't exceeded 200mph in testing (and certainly not with a real vehicle or people on board). this "competition" never had any funding or financing attached. if missouri showed up with cash in hand, they'd be back in the running.

Would be interesting to see how much local funding indicated compared to investor funding for the regions on the long list. Would expect the ratio will be quite high towards local funding. As posted earlier, MO should only invest as much as can be applied toward a new I-70 as a contingency plan if Hyperloop fails.

And if Hyperloop One expects mostly regional/local funding, probably a good thing MO not on the list. And they have yet to prove the claims.

The feasibility study should assume 200-300MPH and not 700+ not yet demonstrated. And State of MO should not be suckered into funding this. Only contribute enough that applies to a contingency plan (if this fails) using the right of way for a new I70, let investors pay for the rest.

That said, MO should go after freight first. STL and KC are in the top 5 as freight rail centers (KC #1 or #2 depending on how measured). It makes sense to use this for freight the first few years and work out any risky kinks and perhaps extend to Chicago/STL and Dallas/KC (other top 5 freight centers). Then target passengers when proved out. The Feds ultimately may not allow passengers until tested with freight for a while anyway and the KC/STL link probably makes more sense than most other links being considered (ultimately tying Chicago/Dallas with freight and KC/STL inter-modal sites).

What's the cost advantage of paying to get freight from Kansas City to STL in 30 minutes instead of 4 hours though? And like then what do you do with it? Load it back on to trucks?

This is all just vapor.

WoodDraw wrote:What's the cost advantage of paying to get freight from Kansas City to STL in 30 minutes instead of 4 hours though? And like then what do you do with it? Load it back on to trucks?

This is all just vapor.

Only one Amazon Now warehouse needed for both KC and STL?

kcjak wrote:

WoodDraw wrote:What's the cost advantage of paying to get freight from Kansas City to STL in 30 minutes instead of 4 hours though? And like then what do you do with it? Load it back on to trucks?

This is all just vapor.

Only one Amazon Now warehouse needed for both KC and STL?

I doubt they could ship enough product in a single line for both regions.

Which is why there are feasibility studies. If it's not worth doing, don't. But it could be worth doing freight only for several years with the CBA working out for adding passengers long term (after kinks/risks worked out). Infrastructure this significant probably wouldn't have a payback period well over 10 years anyway. As long as MO isn't suckered into paying for most of this nothing wrong with doing feasibility studies and seeking outside investors.

MO should only invest as much as can be applied to a contingency plan for a new I70 if Hyperloop fails, such as acquiring right a way.

earthling wrote:The feasibility study should assume 200-300MPH and not 700+ not yet demonstrated. And State of MO should not be suckered into funding this. Only contribute enough that applies to a contingency plan (if this fails) using the right of way for a new I70, let investors pay for the rest.

If they do a feasibility study, they should do it over all high speed transit types, i.e. MagLev and high speed steel-wheel-on-steel-rail, because none of this has been demonstrated at scale. I won't go over why hyperloop will never work, because that topic has been beaten to death and people still get exited about this bs, but if we assume that it is only 200-300MPH, both MagLev and steel-wheel-on-steel-rail could go that fast - and they are proven technologies.

any hyperloop proposal in the midwest that doesn't include chicago is bunk. i would have liked to have seen kc-stl-chicago...kc-stl sounds half-baked to me.

warwickland wrote:any hyperloop proposal in the midwest that doesn't include chicago is bunk. i would have liked to have seen kc-stl-chicago...kc-stl sounds half-baked to me.

absolutely. since the hyperloop is not interoperable with other modes, a network approach to planning is needed. i guess "copy the interstates" is one way to do it, but it's not obvious that's happening. also, what the hell are rural communities going to do? the benefit of rail and freeways is local access all along the route. hyperloop MO is only KC-CoMo-STL (and maybe some suburban stops?).

My guess is that there won't ever be rural stops if this does end up happening, rural communities are dying all around the developed world. Now that food production is mostly concentrated with a few companies a ton of rural communities doesn't really make economic sense anymore. That is why we are seeing the quality of life start to wither away. There aren't many jobs there, and most jobs now that pay well require complex infrastructure that isn't feasible without economies of scale. However if the hyper loop does end up happening it will probably exaserbate this. That's why I think it's smart for kc to stay in the running. It can make Syracuse feel farther away for NYC than Denver

And we want to connect with St. Louis why? Why let them drag us down?

It's a powerful force like the highways, there will most certainly be negatives but it would do far more damage to our city long term if we didn't connect at all

beautyfromashes wrote:And we want to connect with St. Louis why? Why let them drag us down?

To spread STDs more quickly to KC of course...
http://www.stltoday.com/lifestyles/heal ... 046c8.html

beautyfromashes wrote:And we want to connect with St. Louis why? Why let them drag us down?

i guess the kansas city metro focusing only on having a half-dysfunctional foot in kansas instead of a better connection to the primary economic driver in the state - the 1.3 million missourians in st. louis city and st. louis county - is a better distraction.

this reminds me of trumpies yelling "whatboutchicago."

earthling wrote:

beautyfromashes wrote:And we want to connect with St. Louis why? Why let them drag us down?

To spread STDs more quickly to KC of course...
http://www.stltoday.com/lifestyles/heal ... 046c8.html

kansas city statistics of all things would turn to hell pretty quickly if "kansas city" were only south of the river, and urban core only.

Or you know essentially removing barriers to get to a five million person powerhouse, which will allow us greater economies of scale

i think it would be a good thing, if it were a realistic proposal. i think many people would love being able to live in the same place but be able to accept a job on the other side of the state. suddenly having the employment options of a 5 million person metro (or whatever) would be huge. it would probably boost real estate values through the roof in many areas of kc and st. louis.

warwickland wrote: it would probably boost real estate values through the roof in many areas of kc and st. louis.

Only on the edge of the city. Think of how hard it would be to get this thing much closer than Blue Springs. This isn't going down the middle of I-70 all the way to downtown for the same reason we don't have rail down it.

Think of the massive parking needed for both residents and rental cars at it. The demand to not drive across the state will need as much parking as the airport has and a huge rental car system to rival it.

And the cost to use it will be immense. How do you think a mile of system that will costs $30-100 million per mile is going to be so cheap that anyone except executives will be using it?

I don't see it being anything more than a system for the rich and transporting very expensive cargo.

The economic difference between this and other modes of transport is that it potentially could have departures 24/7. They are projecting being able to launch a pod a minute. More like a tollway. So much higher capacity = lower per ride fees. In urban areas, it will most likely be underground.