What it would do is create a larger potential catchment pool for flights, particularly long-haul flights since those often consider demand from a couple hours away from an airport as possible passengers for those flights.urban_dilettante wrote: ↑Oct 05, 2017not sure why anything would happen to the airports. you still need an airport if you're going anywhere other than St. Louis, Columbia, or KC. Hyper Loop replacing airports will never happen.addxb2 wrote: ↑Oct 05, 2017Let's just indulge in this a little further...
Lets say, Missouri gets it, builds it, and its running smoothly.
What happens to the airports? STL, KCI, and Columbia.
Does Missouri just invest in one mega, centrally located, airport (maybe Columbia) that would serve 5 million +?
- 989
So the hyperloop keeps moving.
Feasibility study announced for futuristic Missouri hyperloop tube-travel system
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metr ... 9502f.html
Black and Veatch, a Kansas City area-based engineering company, will lead a study of the feasibility of a futuristic "hyperloop" tube-travel system aimed at moving passengers and cargo across Missouri in less than a half hour.
The study of the St. Louis-to-Kansas City route, which will take six to nine months, was announced Tuesday by the Missouri Hyperloop Coalition, a statewide public-private alliance that formed in October.
Black and Veatch, which is donating staff time and services valued at $400,000, will work with Virgin Hyperloop One, the California company that last fall added Missouri to its list of top candidates for its initial projects.
Feasibility study announced for futuristic Missouri hyperloop tube-travel system
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metr ... 9502f.html
Black and Veatch, a Kansas City area-based engineering company, will lead a study of the feasibility of a futuristic "hyperloop" tube-travel system aimed at moving passengers and cargo across Missouri in less than a half hour.
The study of the St. Louis-to-Kansas City route, which will take six to nine months, was announced Tuesday by the Missouri Hyperloop Coalition, a statewide public-private alliance that formed in October.
Black and Veatch, which is donating staff time and services valued at $400,000, will work with Virgin Hyperloop One, the California company that last fall added Missouri to its list of top candidates for its initial projects.
I'm torn between "what an awful waste of money on such an unlikely venture" and "what a nice change to see this state on the forefront of something that could be big."
I am very much in the same camp as you. Partially because I am curious how many people actually would use it. I am going to be optimistic about it for now though, since we rarely are on the forefront of anything cool on a national level.
The article posted by Hyperloop on this topic included some interesting dialogue from STL and KC reps.
They mentioned multiple times how this would help St. Louis and Kansas City move beyond competing against each other. I don't see how thats possible. If it has the benefits they describe, wouldn't we both just be more marketable to outside companies. St. Louis officials would be happier if you chose to open shop along the Hyperloop in St. Louis, than in KC.
Regardless, I think after the feasibility study is complete (which I expect will identify station locations) it would probably be wise for the Chamber to launch a medium-sized planning effort. I'm still 95% certain this won't happen, but I'd rather have a competitive land use and development plan if it does.
They mentioned multiple times how this would help St. Louis and Kansas City move beyond competing against each other. I don't see how thats possible. If it has the benefits they describe, wouldn't we both just be more marketable to outside companies. St. Louis officials would be happier if you chose to open shop along the Hyperloop in St. Louis, than in KC.
Regardless, I think after the feasibility study is complete (which I expect will identify station locations) it would probably be wise for the Chamber to launch a medium-sized planning effort. I'm still 95% certain this won't happen, but I'd rather have a competitive land use and development plan if it does.
I agree on how many people will use is a big question mark. However, I think what is not in the discussion is how many packages could be moved if you take people out of the equation. How many packages is being moved right now between various city pairs, whether it be UPS, FedEx, USPS and how many trucks, railcars and airplanes being used. I really think the game changer is if hyperloop is discussed in terms of a regional network & what is being carried is packages instead of people.
- 3,445
Good thought about the freight aspect, I didn't even think about that. Even if there isn't a ton of people moving the amount of freight you could move could increase both ends as distribution hubs.dredger wrote: ↑Jan 30, 2018
I agree on how many people will use is a big question mark. However, I think what is not in the discussion is how many packages could be moved if you take people out of the equation. How many packages is being moved right now between various city pairs, whether it be UPS, FedEx, USPS and how many trucks, railcars and airplanes being used. I really think the game changer is if hyperloop is discussed in terms of a regional network & what is being carried is packages instead of people.
- 6,155
I think I'm in the same position as jshank and jstriebel. I'm torn on how likely this is to be meaningful, how much it will cost, and small bits of squee. As dredger's question on how many people will use it and Gary's thoughts on how it will compete with aircraft . . .
Keep in mind, unlike aircraft, it won't need to climb out or taxi. That will help. They were suggesting half an hour end to end. A cross state flight takes, what, about forty five minutes takeoff to landing? But that's not counting pushback, taxi, wait time for clearance, etc. I want to say the scheduled time gate to gate is every bit of an hour. And that's not even counting the fact that boarding could be quite a lot quicker for the hyperloop, if they can achieve rail like times, and that getting through the station should be both quicker and much more pleasant. That will save quite a lot of time indeed. Add to that better seats and a more comfortable, albeit bland ride. And it would cut fuel costs to the bone. Gary is undoubtedly correct about the astronomical infrastructure cost. But we've shouldered huge and expensive transportation projects before.
Anyway, I don't doubt there'd be at least modest passenger ridership. But the freight could be interesting. Just imagine how something like this, especially if it were a nationwide network, might affect Amazon's distribution model, for instance. Better than airplane speeds for less than rail fuel. That right there is a really attractive proposition. Assuming manpower is approximately comparable the fuel savings alone will pay for a lot. Just think how much fuel the domestic airline industry uses. This starts to actually look interesting. Transformative. There are a lot of assumptions here, but that's what a test project is all about. Proof of concept. The railroads started with a few miles of track between a couple of nothing towns in England and a hissing, cumbersome, ugly, improvised beast of a thing. It's time for a new (Missouri) Pacific Railroad. (Note, the Missouri Pacific, which is among the oldest parts of what is now the Union Pacific, was originally called the Pacific Railroad. And it ran between St. Louis and Kansas City. With state backing helping to subsidize private dollars. Paid off handsomely, I'd say.)
Oh, right. Sorry. That's the squee part. It's a big push. And expensive. And a lot will depend on where you put it and how you make it work. But the freight is absolutely there. Passengers too, for that matter, if you can get enough of them. They're there. You just need to get all of them. The potential is there. New modes of transportation wander in every now and then. And it's been a good hundred years since the last revolution.
Keep in mind, unlike aircraft, it won't need to climb out or taxi. That will help. They were suggesting half an hour end to end. A cross state flight takes, what, about forty five minutes takeoff to landing? But that's not counting pushback, taxi, wait time for clearance, etc. I want to say the scheduled time gate to gate is every bit of an hour. And that's not even counting the fact that boarding could be quite a lot quicker for the hyperloop, if they can achieve rail like times, and that getting through the station should be both quicker and much more pleasant. That will save quite a lot of time indeed. Add to that better seats and a more comfortable, albeit bland ride. And it would cut fuel costs to the bone. Gary is undoubtedly correct about the astronomical infrastructure cost. But we've shouldered huge and expensive transportation projects before.
Anyway, I don't doubt there'd be at least modest passenger ridership. But the freight could be interesting. Just imagine how something like this, especially if it were a nationwide network, might affect Amazon's distribution model, for instance. Better than airplane speeds for less than rail fuel. That right there is a really attractive proposition. Assuming manpower is approximately comparable the fuel savings alone will pay for a lot. Just think how much fuel the domestic airline industry uses. This starts to actually look interesting. Transformative. There are a lot of assumptions here, but that's what a test project is all about. Proof of concept. The railroads started with a few miles of track between a couple of nothing towns in England and a hissing, cumbersome, ugly, improvised beast of a thing. It's time for a new (Missouri) Pacific Railroad. (Note, the Missouri Pacific, which is among the oldest parts of what is now the Union Pacific, was originally called the Pacific Railroad. And it ran between St. Louis and Kansas City. With state backing helping to subsidize private dollars. Paid off handsomely, I'd say.)
Oh, right. Sorry. That's the squee part. It's a big push. And expensive. And a lot will depend on where you put it and how you make it work. But the freight is absolutely there. Passengers too, for that matter, if you can get enough of them. They're there. You just need to get all of them. The potential is there. New modes of transportation wander in every now and then. And it's been a good hundred years since the last revolution.
- 3,445
The Post Business Section had a piece on this today.
"Backers haven’t disclosed a potential price tag for building the Missouri system but officials in Colorado say their proposed 360-mile system would cost about $24 billion.
Ryan Kelly, a Virgin Hyperloop One official, did note that the proposed Missouri route is relatively flat compared with mountainous Colorado."
http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/ ... f.html#_=_
"Backers haven’t disclosed a potential price tag for building the Missouri system but officials in Colorado say their proposed 360-mile system would cost about $24 billion.
Ryan Kelly, a Virgin Hyperloop One official, did note that the proposed Missouri route is relatively flat compared with mountainous Colorado."
http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/ ... f.html#_=_
Just to add to this, I checked a couple flight times and it lookes like KC-STL by plane "in air" time averages about 35 minutes, plus 20 more for taxiing. 55ish total.symphonicpoet wrote: ↑Jan 31, 2018
Keep in mind, unlike aircraft, it won't need to climb out or taxi. That will help. They were suggesting half an hour end to end. A cross state flight takes, what, about forty five minutes takeoff to landing? But that's not counting pushback, taxi, wait time for clearance, etc. I want to say the scheduled time gate to gate is every bit of an hour. And that's not even counting the fact that boarding could be quite a lot quicker for the hyperloop, if they can achieve rail like times, and that getting through the station should be both quicker and much more pleasant. That will save quite a lot of time indeed. Add to that better seats and a more comfortable, albeit bland ride. And it would cut fuel costs to the bone. Gary is undoubtedly correct about the astronomical infrastructure cost. But we've shouldered huge and expensive transportation projects before.
Because less people would be on it, I would agree you wouldn't have to get to the station as early and in most cases I would think a station would be closer to where people live (with multiple stations) than the airport.
I assume there could be some concerns with the build out of the infrastructure and the land it will take, but beyond that, is this perhaps a more environmentally friendly and sustainable system than Air travel? I'm not well versed, but I assume new technology like this, originally presented by Elon Musk, wouldn't be reliant on fossil fuels.
- 989
Considering it would end up being even faster than air travel due to no dealing with TSA which killed short haul air travel since its made driving a faster option further out than before (also higher speed limits contributed) Though a system like this would work well to be connected to airports due to ability connect to/from a plane going further away.
What also helps with this line is the possibilty that over time spurs and additions can be done to build out a network, especially considering the sizable number of metro areas 250-300 miles away from here.
What also helps with this line is the possibilty that over time spurs and additions can be done to build out a network, especially considering the sizable number of metro areas 250-300 miles away from here.
- 2,386
Interesting topic and I like forward thinking within the state. I guess being the first state to unite two major population centers should in theory allow both StL and KC to compete for larger companies as you could theoretically argue this creates the availability of a ~5mil metro area as opposed to ~3mil and ~2mil respectively.
This particular idea just doesn't move the needle a ton for me. I think the real value of a hyperloop system as envisioned will be connecting the East Coast and West coasts (separately) in a more European manner, enabling more commerce and economic value via increasing talent pools through easier migration, similar to what the interstate system originally did for companies (although the destruction caused to cities is well known on this board.) Therefore, IMO, connecting to KC really does nothing as you would really still need a connection to Chicago as I would highly doubt at this point any other Midwest city becomes the connector to the East Coast system at large.
(((Also, if anyone is watching Musk overall, this system makes a ton of sense for a broader vision. You use your solar roof to charge your Power Wall, which then powers your automated Tesla, which takes you to your hyperloop station, which takes you to one place (more than likely New York) in a very short amount of time, where you board a literal Space-X rocket that takes you to Beijing in 30 minutes. He seems to think big and this all makes sense on a grandiose scale. He would literally control the movement of the entire US population.)))
This particular idea just doesn't move the needle a ton for me. I think the real value of a hyperloop system as envisioned will be connecting the East Coast and West coasts (separately) in a more European manner, enabling more commerce and economic value via increasing talent pools through easier migration, similar to what the interstate system originally did for companies (although the destruction caused to cities is well known on this board.) Therefore, IMO, connecting to KC really does nothing as you would really still need a connection to Chicago as I would highly doubt at this point any other Midwest city becomes the connector to the East Coast system at large.
(((Also, if anyone is watching Musk overall, this system makes a ton of sense for a broader vision. You use your solar roof to charge your Power Wall, which then powers your automated Tesla, which takes you to your hyperloop station, which takes you to one place (more than likely New York) in a very short amount of time, where you board a literal Space-X rocket that takes you to Beijing in 30 minutes. He seems to think big and this all makes sense on a grandiose scale. He would literally control the movement of the entire US population.)))
- 4
I think this is the real growth potential for this or any true HSR system that could be built - STL would make a natural hub for such a system in a way that it might not for flying (because as you accurately pointed out short haul flying is not nearly as attractive as it used to be).imperialmog wrote: ↑Jan 31, 2018What also helps with this line is the possibilty that over time spurs and additions can be done to build out a network, especially considering the sizable number of metro areas 250-300 miles away from here.
Whether hyperloop becomes reality or not, if it becomes viable or not at least you could make the case that this might be St Louis moment to leap ahead of Chicago to become regional hyperloop hub just as Chicago leaped ahead St Louis to become the regional hub for rail. As stltransplant noted, a hub and spoke network out of St. Louis pretty much connects Midwest metro areas as ties together major rail/intermodal logistic locations in KC, Chicago & Memphis that BN and UP have built up.stltransplant wrote: ↑Jan 31, 2018I think this is the real growth potential for this or any true HSR system that could be built - STL would make a natural hub for such a system in a way that it might not for flying (because as you accurately pointed out short haul flying is not nearly as attractive as it used to be).imperialmog wrote: ↑Jan 31, 2018What also helps with this line is the possibilty that over time spurs and additions can be done to build out a network, especially considering the sizable number of metro areas 250-300 miles away from here.
What will be interesting if it goes forward if they will promote people centric locations/stations or freight/package stations for ease of truck ingress/egress. I'm probably mistaken, but I thought they referenced Metro East location station for St. Louis that had no connectivity outside of automobile.
Stops on both ends below the respective Union Stations would be killer (St. Louis plus would include USPS distribution facility next door).. The conventional tunneling would drive up cost but Musk already has his own tunneling business that he claims is a leap forward in technology to drive down the cost
I think it allows real flexibility in the workforce and labor markets (depending on the cost of a trip). If I want to hire someone and the best candidate is in KC, but unwilling to move, a 30-45 minute commute on the hyperlink might make sense. That is a normal commute time for a lot of people within a metro area. This, of course, is dependent on WHERE the stops are located (as always), but you see the point. If I found a good job in Chicago but didn't want to uproot my family, I would do an hour commute on a theoretical hyperloop to Chicago. No different than people commuting on the Metro North into New York City.
I would also totally go to KC to see a band that skipped St. Louis and then be home that night (depending on schedules and location of stations).
I would also totally go to KC to see a band that skipped St. Louis and then be home that night (depending on schedules and location of stations).
I've been thinking about this for a couple months and will echo dredger's commnent. One of the things Hyperloop liked about Missouri (once they finally took a look) is that it's a straight shot over relatively flat, undeveloped land. Same could be said from STL to Chicago, Des Moines (Mpls), Indianapolis (Cinti), Memphis and (almost to) Nashville.
I've no problem with Missouri spending, going out on a limb for this. Actually, impressed it is.
I've no problem with Missouri spending, going out on a limb for this. Actually, impressed it is.
- 6,155
It's not just because of the number of people. It's also because of the potential capacity of boarding doors and aisles. The geometry of something that flies really restricts you in how you can get people on and off. Wings get in the way. Seating densities are absurdly high. Boarding doors are few. And none of these things can be easily fixed. Most are more or less dictated by a devil's brew of physics and economics until someone radically alters aircraft design. A hyperloop "train" needn't conform to any of that. You could have broad aisles within the limits of your loading gauge, wide and numerous doors, and relatively short walks from headhouse to train. Interestingly enough, Union Station handled about the same number of people at its peak as Lambert. Lambert needed more than 80 gates spread over miles of linear space. Union Station needed thirty odd tracks confined to a a space of a few square blocks. Your longest walk from the station door to your seat would have been about fifteen hundred feet. That barely gets you past security in T1. From entry at T1 to the east end of the D concourse (a quite plausible walk back in the day) runs almost three times that; four thousand feet, more or less. So even if you assume the same capacities there's really no way an airport can compete with a train station for passing passengers. Planes are, to say the least, inefficient. Fast and fun, but inefficient. Not terribly ergonomic. Make a train the same speed? Game over.
. . . Of course, that's really really really hard.
I'm hopeful, but St. Louis isn't too much closer to a great circle route between New York and LA. New York to San Francisco pretty much goes through Chicago. Now, we are closer to the center of population, and that only becomes more true as the population shifts south and west. But our geographic advantage isn't much. And O&D would work against us, as it does in airports. To leapfrog the gorilla would require a lot of forward thinking and investment. Probably local investment, since it's not necessarily in any one else's interests.dredger wrote: Whether hyperloop becomes reality or not, if it becomes viable or not at least you could make the case that this might be St Louis moment to leap ahead of Chicago to become regional hyperloop hub just as Chicago leaped ahead St Louis to become the regional hub for rail. As stltransplant noted, a hub and spoke network out of St. Louis pretty much connects Midwest metro areas as ties together major rail/intermodal logistic locations in KC, Chicago & Memphis that BN and UP have built up.
I would hope ultimately there would be separate stations for both.What will be interesting if it goes forward if they will promote people centric locations/stations or freight/package stations for ease of truck ingress/egress.
Of course, that O&D argument is less important to stuff than people. And other costs become much more important. Which, I'd guess, is why Memphis has FedEx and not Chicago. It's just cheaper.
So yes, to paraphrase Shadrach, this does seem like a limb worth exploring. Maybe it's not just squee. (Though . . . there is surely squee.)
I wish there was a way to put in two easily. That way you could have traffic going both ways at once. They might be able to put in sidings like trains have (For the other pod to pass) but that still slows things down.
I always thought that would make St. Louis the perfect hub for true HSR. The amount of metros within the 200-600 mile sweet spot is pretty impressive. It covers the entire Midwest and even sun belt cities like Atlanta and Dallas. The distances are perfect, you just have to find a bunch of people who wanted to travel to and from St. Louis...imperialmog wrote: ↑Jan 31, 2018What also helps with this line is the possibilty that over time spurs and additions can be done to build out a network, especially considering the sizable number of metro areas 250-300 miles away from here.
I will be attending an event next Thursday hosted by Virgin Hyperloop One on Mizzou's campus so I am posting on here to see if anyone has any questions/ideas/suggestions on anything related to the Hyperloop in STL/Missouri that I can ask on your behalf. I for one am very excited to learn more about this thing.
So we may not still be in the Hyperloop One Contest running, but apparently someone still thinks a KC-to-STL tube thingy is a good idea:
New study confirms hyperloop system from KC to St. Louis would be feasible
KANSAS CITY, Mo. - A new study says a hyperloop system from Kansas City to St. Louis in less than a half hour is not only safe and sustainable, it's also feasible.
-RBBThe study found that the travel time between KC and STL would be just 28 minutes, compared to the nearly 4 hours required to drive. Trips to Columbia from either city would be just 15 minutes.
The land along the interstate is straight and relatively flat, the feasibility study says, making construction relatively simple.
According to the study, the cost to use the hyperloop would also be less than the cost of gas to drive. Additionally, with fewer drivers on the interstate, Black and Veatch said it would reduce crashes and the resulting costs of damage.
The report did not release specific details about how much it would cost to build the Missouri hyperloop.
But Marcia Christoff, a spokeswoman for Virgin Hyperloop One said they estimate it will cost about $30 million to $40 million per mile, including the construction of the track. At this time, the company believes the route will be approximately 250 miles, putting the total cost into the billions.
The report says that cost would still be 40 percent lower than other similar projects around the world.