Alternative option. Terminal Two becomes the STL terminus of the first viable hyperloop. Perfectly situated for heavy industry and logistics, the airport becomes a hub for global companies innovating the cutting edge Hyperloop field. Finally all of the excess capacity is put to good use.
- 3,446
Check my numbers. Comparison of building hyper loop for $10 billion, vs funding tickets for everyone who currently flies to and from KC for 50 years at current cost and volume levels. Would folks pay $556 vs $250 to save 27 minutes?
| Cost of one flight to KC | $250 |
| Cost of one plane (150 seats) | $37,500 |
| Cost of one month (100 flights) | $3,750,000 |
| Cost of one year (12 months) | $45,000,000 |
| Cost of 50 years | $2,250,000,000 |
| Cost of round trips to STL KC | $4,500,000,000 |
| Total Cost of Hyperloop | $10,000,000,000 |
| Difference | $5,500,000,000 |
| Difference in cost per MO resident | $896 |
| Number of total seats to and from KC 50 years | 18,000,000 |
| HL cost per seat per one way trip ($10B/18M) | $556 |
| Difference in cost per seat per 1 way trip | $306 |
| Time savings (57 minutes air - 30 minutes HL) | 27 |
| Delta HL cost per minute per one way trip | $11 |
Hyperloop would be less to operate with far fewer personnel. It is in theory a very automated experience. Not to mention almost no fuel.
I think a selling benefit of hyperloop would be that it could generate 4 or 5x the number of trips per year. It would be hard to quantify how many more trips would be made if flying or 5 hr drive wasn’t involved.
For example, hyperloop one way every 15 minutes could be more than two million seats per year.
I think a selling benefit of hyperloop would be that it could generate 4 or 5x the number of trips per year. It would be hard to quantify how many more trips would be made if flying or 5 hr drive wasn’t involved.
For example, hyperloop one way every 15 minutes could be more than two million seats per year.
Well, it's far more than 27 minute savings depending on where you are trying to get to. You need to be at the airports at least 1 hour in advance, usually wait for baggage, and they are outside of the core areas.
It is unrealistic to expect that similar TSA restrictions will not also be put in place for Hyperloop at some point. Rapid decompression of a segment would be catastrophic to anyone nearby or within the system. This brings up the importance (and cost) of security along the entire route. Will people want to live, work, or drive near a bomb ready to go off at any moment?cteclipse wrote: ↑Sep 05, 2020Well, it's far more than 27 minute savings depending on where you are trying to get to. You need to be at the airports at least 1 hour in advance, usually wait for baggage, and they are outside of the core areas.
The costs to maintain 250 miles+ of vacuum tubes and to keep them depressured will be enormous and require tons of energy.addxb2 wrote: ↑Sep 04, 2020Hyperloop would be less to operate with far fewer personnel. It is in theory a very automated experience. Not to mention almost no fuel.
I think a selling benefit of hyperloop would be that it could generate 4 or 5x the number of trips per year. It would be hard to quantify how many more trips would be made if flying or 5 hr drive wasn’t involved.
For example, hyperloop one way every 15 minutes could be more than two million seats per year.
- 3,762
^ this right here. what an enormous waste of resources.
The entire Hyperloop idea seems flawed. People are pushing as technology that hasn't been proven and a technology that so many people have questions about. Say the magic tube train does get build, I would expect there to be Tea style security, if not more advanced just because, as you said, anything that could cause decompression would be catastrophic. People would die and the system would go down for a long period time.ldai_phs wrote: ↑Sep 07, 2020It is unrealistic to expect that similar TSA restrictions will not also be put in place for Hyperloop at some point. Rapid decompression of a segment would be catastrophic to anyone nearby or within the system. This brings up the importance (and cost) of security along the entire route. Will people want to live, work, or drive near a bomb ready to go off at any moment?cteclipse wrote: ↑Sep 05, 2020Well, it's far more than 27 minute savings depending on where you are trying to get to. You need to be at the airports at least 1 hour in advance, usually wait for baggage, and they are outside of the core areas.
On another note, there's something about being stuck in a windowless tube going 800mph or so that doesn't seem fun to me. It sounds like a sickening thing.
- 3,762
^ i don't think decompression/explosion would be a concern—it's evacuated, not compressed. meaning, if the vacuum were breached air would rush into the system until it reaches atmospheric pressure. it's certainly not hard to imagine that this could be fatal for a pod full of people traveling at several hundred MPH but i have no idea how they're planning to couple the pod to the tube. agree with Chris that i have no desire to be stuck in a windowless pod hurtling through a pipe at several hundred MPH even for a short period of time, but i think the bigger obstacle to this thing is the insane waste of time, resources, and energy that will be required to build hundreds of miles of vacuum tubes and keep them evacuated. even if you have an air-tight vacuum system (which would be impossible to maintain for a massive system like this sitting out in the elements and subject to heating cycles, seismic activity, etc.) there's still no such thing as pump-and-done because materials outgas and contaminants stuck to the surface desorb over time. you have to be pumping all the time to maintain vacuum. the second you stop pumping the pressure starts rising back to atmosphere.
- 2,663
The more I hear about Hyperloop the less excited I am about it. True high speed rail seems so much more feasible than this literal pipe dream. Sure it's a cool idea that very well could show promise one day, but sinking this much state investment into it while neglecting existing and proven HSR tech seems unlikely to pay off.
We are in an ideal place geographically to implement HSR. Largely surrounded by flat and easily buildable land. Several cities in the 3-5 hour HSR sweet spot. Chicago, Memphis, KC, and Indy all seem like low hanging fruit when it comes to geography and proximity. Just use existing highway corridors.
We are in an ideal place geographically to implement HSR. Largely surrounded by flat and easily buildable land. Several cities in the 3-5 hour HSR sweet spot. Chicago, Memphis, KC, and Indy all seem like low hanging fruit when it comes to geography and proximity. Just use existing highway corridors.
Imagine this https://youtu.be/VS6IckF1CM0 occurs to a segment outside of a neighborhood. Two seconds later a hyperloop train slams into the collapsed segment at 900 mph+ creating a cloud of shrapnel that rips through every object in the area.urban_dilettante wrote:^ i don't think decompression/explosion would be a concern—it's evacuated, not compressed. meaning, if the vacuum were breached air would rush into the system until it reaches atmospheric pressure. it's certainly not hard to imagine that this could be fatal for a pod full of people traveling at several hundred MPH but i have no idea how they're planning to couple the pod to the tube. agree with Chris that i have no desire to be stuck in a windowless pod hurtling through a pipe at several hundred MPH even for a short period of time, but i think the bigger obstacle to this thing is the insane waste of time, resources, and energy that will be required to build hundreds of miles of vacuum tubes and keep them evacuated. even if you have an air-tight vacuum system (which would be impossible to maintain for a massive system like this sitting out in the elements and subject to heating cycles, seismic activity, etc.) there's still no such thing as pump-and-done because materials outgas and contaminants stuck to the surface desorb over time. you have to be pumping all the time to maintain vacuum. the second you stop pumping the pressure starts rising back to atmosphere.
A bad hail storm, car crash, random shooter, kids throwing rocks, etc could cause a rapid decompression. The implosion above occurred because the car received a dent at pressure it easily held previously. I believe the tank in the video failed at 78,000 pascals and Hyperloop plans to operate at 100. So Hyperloop will require even more perfect conditions with any reaction being many times more violent.
Numerous videos can be found online that, at minimum, should show why this technology is too risky for Missouri to make a big bet on.
High speed rail on the other hand is a well developed technology that we could start building tomorrow if we so choose.
- 3,762
^ great video. it's not that they can't build robust, sturdy tubes (and i strongly doubt that tanker was built to withstand being evacuated) but the amount of material and complexity would be astronomical. i don't think hail and kids throwing rocks would be a concern but bullets, meteorites, high-velocity tornado debris, etc. could certainly cause problems.
Or, given they want to run it along the I-70 corridor, auto accidents (e.g.: a tractor trailer crashes at speed). Will it be sufficiently segregated from the road bed?urban_dilettante wrote: ↑Sep 08, 2020^ great video. it's not that they can't build robust, sturdy tubes (and i strongly doubt that tanker was built to withstand being evacuated) but the amount of material and complexity would be astronomical. i don't think hail and kids throwing rocks would be a concern but bullets, meteorites, high-velocity tornado debris, etc. could certainly cause problems.
-RBB
Missouri is out, West Virginia is in for the Hyperloop test track.
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/sta ... 3561b.html
IMHO...good.
Also to some of the points above...it looks like the legislation that was passed so the state could explore "tube transport" actually forbade using the I-70 ROW.
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/sta ... 3561b.html
IMHO...good.
Also to some of the points above...it looks like the legislation that was passed so the state could explore "tube transport" actually forbade using the I-70 ROW.
Tube can use i70 as long as a third lane could still be added.sc4mayor wrote:Missouri is out, West Virginia is in for the Hyperloop test track.
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/sta ... 3561b.html
IMHO...good.
Also to some of the points above...it looks like the legislation that was passed so the state could explore "tube transport" actually forbade using the I-70 ROW.
^ Skip the stupid tube and just add the third lane already.
In July, Missouri Gov. Mike Parson signed legislation establishing a framework for how a tube transport system would work in Missouri. It barred the use of funds that are currently used to build and maintain roads and prohibited the system from being built on Interstate 70 right-of-way.
Interesting.... the legislation I read said that you could but ig I was wrong. Would love to see a 100+mph rail route down the center of i70sc4mayor wrote:^ Skip the stupid tube and just add the third lane already.
In July, Missouri Gov. Mike Parson signed legislation establishing a framework for how a tube transport system would work in Missouri. It barred the use of funds that are currently used to build and maintain roads and prohibited the system from being built on Interstate 70 right-of-way.
^ Well let's not assume the PD isn't misrepresenting the legislation either lol. I imagine any potential tube transport would run near I-70, they would probably just have to acquire more ROW near the highway.
I'm all in with ya for high speed rail...proven, tested and plenty fast. Seems the most obvious choice...so of course Missouri legislators will just ignore it.
I'm all in with ya for high speed rail...proven, tested and plenty fast. Seems the most obvious choice...so of course Missouri legislators will just ignore it.
I would think that a tube or train could hold freight or at least reduce passenger traffic enough since that a third lane isn’t needed.quincunx wrote:Wouldn't the tube render a third lane unnecessary?
- 1,802
Absolutely! 70 should be 6 lanes from StL to Columbia at minimumsc4mayor wrote: ↑Oct 08, 2020^ Skip the stupid tube and just add the third lane already.
In July, Missouri Gov. Mike Parson signed legislation establishing a framework for how a tube transport system would work in Missouri. It barred the use of funds that are currently used to build and maintain roads and prohibited the system from being built on Interstate 70 right-of-way.
lol incredible and sad to see that an urbanist forum is whoopin and hollerin in support of more sprawl inducing freeways.....and would rather cling to being 50+ years behind with "100mph" trains 
rather than actually be ahead of the curve...being at the cutting edge is how you retain and attract brain power.....
rather than actually be ahead of the curve...being at the cutting edge is how you retain and attract brain power.....- 991
The technology is suspect at best. If you haven't watch the video idai_phs posted, you really should.
That's why I'm happy they passed on Missouri. If the state wants to be ahead of the curve, then it first has to catch up to the curve and actually invest in the bare bones basic public transit infrastructure.
That's why I'm happy they passed on Missouri. If the state wants to be ahead of the curve, then it first has to catch up to the curve and actually invest in the bare bones basic public transit infrastructure.
^^ Lol...this urbanist would rather see $500 million spent on the state’s existing MetroLink (STL) or streetcar (KC) lines instead of a test track for an unproven technology. The idea that Missouri, a state that can’t even properly fund public education would somehow scrape together the estimated $10 billion+ this thing would cost in today’s dollars is maybe the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.
And adding a 3rd lane on highway 70 in the rural stretches isn’t about embracing sprawl but addressing the rampant safety issues with that highway. I lived in KC for 13 years and have driven that drive more times than I can count, it’s dangerous and it’s overcrowded (the climbing lanes under construction at Mineola will definitely help). I don’t think a third lane is going to lead to St. Louis (a region with no population growth anyway) to sprawl out into Calloway County or other places.
And bring on high-speed rail. Idai suggested 100+ but you can run a lot faster than that nowadays. Be a hell of lot cheaper than this tube too and WAY, WAY easier to get into the densely populated cores of the cities. Where we gonna build these tubes in the built up regions of St. Louis and KC? Can’t exactly run it down the middle of the highway in the cities.
And adding a 3rd lane on highway 70 in the rural stretches isn’t about embracing sprawl but addressing the rampant safety issues with that highway. I lived in KC for 13 years and have driven that drive more times than I can count, it’s dangerous and it’s overcrowded (the climbing lanes under construction at Mineola will definitely help). I don’t think a third lane is going to lead to St. Louis (a region with no population growth anyway) to sprawl out into Calloway County or other places.
And bring on high-speed rail. Idai suggested 100+ but you can run a lot faster than that nowadays. Be a hell of lot cheaper than this tube too and WAY, WAY easier to get into the densely populated cores of the cities. Where we gonna build these tubes in the built up regions of St. Louis and KC? Can’t exactly run it down the middle of the highway in the cities.