Slashdot Mirror


Transportation Designs For a Future That Never Came

An anonymous reader writes "The recently unveiled plans for the Hyperloop have raised a lot of eyebrows, but this is not the first time someone has proposed an idea for mass transit that seemed too good to be true. Here's a look at a few other ideas over the years that never seemed to get off the ground. 'In 1930, the magazine Modern Mechanix presented a plan for a "unique bus of the future (that would) duplicate the speed of railroads. Recent developments in everything that moves has caused many flights of imagination," it wrote. "The bus between New York and San Francisco will be equipped with airplanes for (side trips). For diversion, billiard rooms, swimming pool, dancing floor and a bridle path would be available. The pilot would be 'enthroned' over his engines, with the radio above. Space for autos would be afforded by the deck." Not surprisingly, it never happened.'"

120 comments

  1. But but but but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought that because a scientist was wrong once, it means that anything at all is possible? Why didn't these buses happen?

    1. Re:But but but but by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

      Didn't they happen? Take out the billiard rooms, dance floors, and bridle paths, and you end up with a jumbo jet. In fact, it not only duplicates the speed of railroads, it goes much faster, and it isn't on a rail.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    2. Re:But but but but by jythie · · Score: 1

      I was thinking it looked a lot like a modern cruise liner.

    3. Re:But but but but by Teun · · Score: 1

      Something similar exists
      It's a little smaller than a regular bus but very fast, it can run on regular roads but is designed to run on it's own 'track': http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/transport/high-speed-superbus-debuts-in-dubai

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    4. Re:But but but but by nametaken · · Score: 1

      The real joke of it all is that we have, or had, and few of the vehicles listed. They just didn't look exactly like the artists rendition on the cover of PopSci.

  2. Submerged floating tunnel by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Actually, a submerged floating tunnel sounds kind of doable.

    There's no technical reason why something like this can't be done. There's lots of other reasons, though.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:Submerged floating tunnel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Physics is a bitch. There's a *lot* of water in the ocean, and a 3 kt current is a hell of a lot more energy than the combined nuclear weapons of the world.

    2. Re:Submerged floating tunnel by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      The shortest way... is through the planet's core. Tunnel boring machines, a little slow, but eventually your carcass will get there. Whether you're still living in it is for a different thread.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:Submerged floating tunnel by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I know just the place for it, in terms of technical desirability.

      Lake Washington, next to Seattle, has two pontoon bridges. The surface is a bad place for them because they're vulnerable to the regions occasional but fierce windstorms. The lakebed is too deep and mucky to be good for construction (which is why they are pontoon bridges).

      I don't know how bad currents get in a lake.

    4. Re:Submerged floating tunnel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another problem with that: the outer core is molten and the inner core spins faster than the Earth and at an angle (hence why the magnetic poles don't line up with the Earth's axis.)

    5. Re:Submerged floating tunnel by jythie · · Score: 1

      Looking over the list of things that did not happen, many seemed to depend on other areas of technology coming up with cost effective solutions for infrastructure. So once you have the special roads/tunnels/rails built the tech makes sense, but even building regular roads/tunnels/rails is expensive. Granted those things have gotten a lot of improvements over the years, but there is a real chicken and egg thing going on there since process improvements tend to show up after something is already being done a lot.

    6. Re:Submerged floating tunnel by davester666 · · Score: 3, Funny

      > I don't know how bad currents get in a lake.

      Magnets.

      You're welcome.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    7. Re:Submerged floating tunnel by Teun · · Score: 3, Interesting
      All it takes is a significant market for fast travel and someone willing to invest, a lot of the technology exists.
      The biggest energy expense in fast travel is air resistance so the idea of a (partially) vacuum tunnel is only logic.
      With these speeds a trip doesn't take long and having a relatively small thus cramped cabin is less of an issue.

      The problems with Eminent Domain, a total distrust of government etc. will probably make such a system, under- or above ground, not likely to be pioneered in the US but in places like China or even Europe.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    8. Re:Submerged floating tunnel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Ocean engineer here. Currents have a lot of power (not energy, but power), but unless you mean the whole Gulf Stream, or a very long time period, the energy of the world's nuclear weapons is greater still. But it's kind of hard to argue with someone that isn't consistent with units.

    9. Re:Submerged floating tunnel by careysub · · Score: 5, Informative

      No. Ocean engineer here. Currents have a lot of power (not energy, but power), but unless you mean the whole Gulf Stream, or a very long time period, the energy of the world's nuclear weapons is greater still. But it's kind of hard to argue with someone that isn't consistent with units.

      Two ACs arguing about the energy content of ocean currents vs energy content of nuclear weapons, with neither one putting up a single number to back themselves up. Tsk tsk.

      Lets see: total world nuclear arsenal currently about 6400 megatons, or 2.7 x 10^18 J. Gulf stream volume 150 million cubic meters/sec at Newfoundland (1.5 x 10^11 kg/sec), speed 2 kt, or 4 m/sec. Kinetic power of stream = 1.2 x 10^12 J/sec. Number of seconds for the kinetic energy of the Gulf Stream to equal the nuclear arsenals = 2.25 million, or 26 days. Is that a "very long time"?

      But wait, there's more! The heat transport of the Gulf Stream is 1.2 x 10^15 J/sec, a figure 1000 times larger than its kinetic energy, so the time for the Gulf Stream flow to transport a "world nuclear arsenal" worth of energy is only 2250 seconds, or 38 minutes.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    10. Re:Submerged floating tunnel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gulf stream is also say 200km across. US highway lanes are 3.7m across. I don't recall any highways even above ground that have 50k+ lanes of traffic.

    11. Re:Submerged floating tunnel by hedwards · · Score: 2

      You wouldn't want to do that even if you could. Besides the issues of heat, you'd have to worry about plate tectonics. Not to mention that it would take centuries at the rate we currently excavate. Around here we've had several different deep bore tunnels being dug, I think for a total of about 100 miles between them, and they don't excavate more than about 7.5 meters per day.

      And that's at the surface, without having to worry about the increased pressure of being deep within the earth's core.

    12. Re:Submerged floating tunnel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Over the years working thinking this stuff out what I come up with is there is a huge leap in cost once you shift from static compression structures made of found materials to engineered tension structures. An example a road made of crushed stone, very cheap requires little maintenance, and the maintenance you do have to do is proportional to the usage. Compare with bridge, made of steel, requires vast amounts of maintenance to keep it from decaying. And after 50-100 years it's in bad shape no matter. Tunnels, very much more expensive to maintain than a road made of compressed soil covered in asphalt.

    13. Re:Submerged floating tunnel by tragedy · · Score: 1

      So, in other words, the second AC was right.

    14. Re:Submerged floating tunnel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A submerged floating tunnel sounds like an oxy-moron

    15. Re:Submerged floating tunnel by silentcoder · · Score: 2

      >There's no technical reason why something like this can't be done. There's lots of other reasons, though.

      You mean like the fact that "submerged floating" is an oxymoron ?

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    16. Re:Submerged floating tunnel by cupantae · · Score: 1

      Tunnel boring machines, a little slow

      But if we tunnelled exciting machines, it could be much faster.

      --
      --
    17. Re:Submerged floating tunnel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A submerged tunnel can be floating or non-floating (i.e. on the sea bed). No oxymoron.

    18. Re:Submerged floating tunnel by loufoque · · Score: 1

      That would only work if the planet was hollow. The core is where most of the mass is, and it also happens to be very hot. If we had the technology to build a tunnel through that, we could build our own planets.

    19. Re:Submerged floating tunnel by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Besides the issues of heat, you'd have to worry about plate tectonics

      Plate tectonics, on a human timescale, isn't really worth worrying about. It's the low physical strength of some of the layers involved, particularly the asthenosphere (Greek : "no-strength sphere"). Within hours of cutting the tunnel (with your Unobtanium heat shield etc), the walls would be falling in on you. It's rather like cutting a tunnel through liquid mud or a plastic clay formation - you'd have to line the borehole continuously, which would vastly increase the amount of unobtanium you'd need for the lining. How to use a liquid-unobtanium cooling system to protect the passengers is another issue. As the length of borehole to be cooled increases, you need a larger borehole to run the coolant pipes through. Unless your liquid unobtanium really does have an infinite heat transfer capability.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    20. Re:Submerged floating tunnel by metaforest · · Score: 1

      (with your Unobtanium heat shield etc)

      Hmm I think Obscurium or Nonfoundium alloys would be better choices in such contexts.

      Just sayin'

    21. Re:Submerged floating tunnel by jwdb · · Score: 1

      Any idea how long you could continue to extract this level of power from the Gulf Stream? Wouldn't the resulting disruption of weather patterns change the stream?

    22. Re:Submerged floating tunnel by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Hmm I think Obscurium or Nonfoundium alloys would be better choices in such contexts.

      I use Obscurium and Nonfoundium wire to scour the crack residues out of my pipe, to avoid scratching it's hologram-polished surface.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  3. those Modern Mechanix covers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    are some of the ugliest designs I've seen. Some of those guys may have gone on to do the Ford Edsel or AMC Pacer.

  4. Wrong approach by larry+bagina · · Score: 5, Funny

    We don't need boondoggles and fanciful transportation methods that don't pan out. All we need is: the power of our mind.

    Close your eyes. Pretend you're surrounded by pretentious rich assholes. Bingo, you're in LA. Total cost: $0. Total time: 15 seconds.

    Ok, now close your eyes. Pretend you're surrounded by hipsters and leather deviants. Bang. San Francisco. Ding Ding, you can even hear the trolley and smell the homeless guy peeing.

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    1. Re:Wrong approach by Gaygirlie · · Score: 4, Funny

      Close your eyes. Pretend you're surrounded by pretentious rich assholes. Bingo, you're in LA. Total cost: $0. Total time: 15 seconds.

      HALEP! I ended up in a conference room at Oracle with Larry Ellison! :'(

    2. Re:Wrong approach by ttucker · · Score: 1

      Close your eyes. Pretend you're surrounded by pretentious rich assholes. Bingo, you're in LA. Total cost: $0. Total time: 15 seconds.

      HALEP! I ended up in a conference room at Oracle with Larry Ellison! :'(

      Lucky you.

    3. Re:Wrong approach by jythie · · Score: 1

      Hrm.... this technique could probably be applied to those silly business meetings that eat up so much travel. Just close my eyes and imagine that the other stakeholders gave me all the resources and go-aheads I was wanting. mmmmm

    4. Re:Wrong approach by theguyfromsaturn · · Score: 1

      Meh. I just use Google streetview. Don't even need a poweful mind for that.

      --
      I like my dinosaurs feathery, and my pterosaurs hairy (or is it pycnofibery?)
    5. Re:Wrong approach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like you've never been to LA. Most people around here are working class nobodies, "aspiring" actors, gang bangers and/or bums. The rich make up only a very tiny percentage of the population.

    6. Re:Wrong approach by thunderclap · · Score: 1

      Close your eyes. Pretend you're surrounded by pretentious rich assholes. Bingo, you're in LA. Total cost: $0. Total time: 15 seconds.
      No, I ended up in the Capital Building on the House floor. Gotta run, the police are coming for me now.

    7. Re:Wrong approach by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Just wear leather and pee. Trust me on this.

  5. Rolling Roads by rossdee · · Score: 1

    Has anybody come up with the rolling roads concept again? Kinda like those moving sidewalks at airports but on a gigantic scale.

    1. Re:Rolling Roads by iggymanz · · Score: 2

      sorry, but we don't even have the technology to make an escalator that stands up having 10% of its length exposed to the elements in the midwest. (Eyewitness testimony of subway commuter in large city)

    2. Re:Rolling Roads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean an escalator sold by the lowest bidder, on a procurment contract without monetary penalty for downtime.

    3. Re:Rolling Roads by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

      There was a project in the 90s in Altoona, PA for a moving sidewalk.

    4. Re:Rolling Roads by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      no, that's not how they roll in this city for mass transit expenses. vendors and contractors get preferential treatment for certain reasons. This is top of the line model rated for outdoor (but covered) use from the #1 manufacturer on the planet.

    5. Re:Rolling Roads by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      KONE?

      it's superduper rare to see even covered outdoor escalators in finland.

      but then again, if you were building escalator roads you might just as well cover them... I'd love 'em. fuck snow.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    6. Re:Rolling Roads by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      KONE has 18% of global market in escalators and elevators (that's huge) but Otis still dominates.

  6. Lets all point and laugh by Osgeld · · Score: 1

    At the old magazine covers from the 40's, that was awesome, we are so better than they were right?

    1. Re:Lets all point and laugh by cupantae · · Score: 1

      First paragraph of TFA:

      US entrepreneur Elon Musk recently unveiled plans for a train that would travel at speeds of up to 1,200 kilometers an hour. As promising as his design might be, skeptics would argue he's merely continuing a long tradition of revolutionary transit concepts which inevitably end up thwarted by reality.

      In other words, the article is drawing attention to the idea that current visions of the future might be just as infeasible as those shown in the article.

      --
      --
    2. Re: Lets all point and laugh by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      The past future was awesome. The future future sucks.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  7. Great ideas are out there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There are plenty of great ideas - many of which are feasible from an engineering only standpoint.

    But when you factor in economic viability, that's when you run into problems. And when it comes to publicly sponsored projects, then you run into the inevitable cost "overruns" and mismanagement.

    That's something I never got, how is it that a company can bid on a project, win based on that bid, and end up making whatever the hell they want to in the end - See "Big Dig" in Boston and every other municipal project out there. Are things that corrupt?!

    1. Re:Great ideas are out there. by clarkkent09 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It is not necessarily corruption, it is a natural result of people being tasked with spending other people's money. They don't have to be actually receiving bribes, they just don't have an incentive to be super careful with it. This is why a congressman will casually vote for spending say $500 million of public money, usually without even reading the bill, whereas there is no way in hell he would spend even $5 of his own money without being convinced that he is getting a good deal for it.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    2. Re:Great ideas are out there. by Arker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What you are describing IS corruption. It doesnt have to be bribe-taking. The fact that you can describe it so clearly and NOT call it corruption is symptomatic of our real problem here.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  8. We had to ride horses for thousands of years by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Some things progress very slowly. And with politics being such a big obstacle, not much is going to happen any time soon.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:We had to ride horses for thousands of years by Sique · · Score: 2

      It's not the politics that are the big obstacle. Politics is the playing field where the different interests are fighting each other until there is some result. Politics thus are mainly a result, not the reason for something. The big obstacle is that we don't need most of those transportation means so much, that it might be feasible to invest enough. What's the point of having a cruiser ship like bus line across the U.S.? It might have made sense in a time when even air travel was not faster than 150 mph, and when NY - LA was a two day trip with 10 hrs of flight each day. It does't make much sense when it takes 5 hrs.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    2. Re:We had to ride horses for thousands of years by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's right. I was advocating bringing back some 80 year old fanciful dream to replace our incredibly safe, reliable (despite its fragility) system we employ today. What was I thinking? Let's just call the whole thing off and head to the beach.

      *Amazing*

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:We had to ride horses for thousands of years by Sique · · Score: 2
      No, that's not what I was saying.

      In the most cases, the role of politics is either completely misunderstood, or greatly exaggerated. There are much more simple processes at work. Some of the ideas might have been really good, but for every good concept, there are two adversaries: the one, that is better, and the other one, that is good enough. Having an idea that is really at the sweet spot of being feasable and being between being really better than the current state of affairs, and not being outcompeted by another idea that is better is a very rare occurance.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    4. Re:We had to ride horses for thousands of years by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      Politics: (from Greek: politikos, meaning "of, for, or relating to citizens") is the practice and theory of influencing other people on a civic or individual level. (From wiki, because, what the hell)

      I'm sorry, I just got done with another guy who thinks I don't understand the common meaning of words. Two times in one day is a bit much.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  9. already done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68dTwJNvE1E

  10. Too good to be true? by Mad+Quacker · · Score: 1

    You mean like mass produced electric cars? Or maybe reusable rockets :-/

    Elon Musk does his homework.

    --
    "I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." George HW Bush
    1. Re:Too good to be true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Elon Musk does his homework

      Sometimes he plans on you doing yours.

    2. Re:Too good to be true? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do find out how many passengers his hyperloop can transport per hour.

      And then compare with other modes of transportation. Then you might see that his hyperloop really isn't that much cheaper than a high speed train if you want to transport large numbers of people.

      If you don't want to move large numbers of people, stick to video conferencing - its cheaper.

      Elon Musk just wants someone else to help pay for his personal high speed transport (limited passengers per hour = high ticket costs = only rich people like Musk will be able to afford it). Think Concorde.

    3. Re:Too good to be true? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Precisely. What I'm wondering about is how scalable is this, and what are the maintenance costs going to be on maintaining a depressurized tube. Granted it won't be a complete vacuum, but you still have to maintain it.

      Don't get me wrong, I'd love for this to be feasible, I just have my doubts about that. It's a crap load of expense to replace something that we already know how to build, but doesn't particularly promise to be a stepping stone to anything beyond either.

    4. Re:Too good to be true? by tragedy · · Score: 1

      Do find out how many passengers his hyperloop can transport per hour.

      Apparently 3,360 per tube. I can't actually find any numbers on how many per hour a conventional train carries. I'll try guessing. We're talking about Los Angeles to San Francisco, so the existing trains take about six hours, or 12 times longer than the hyperloop would take. So, the distance is about 382 miles, and we'll divide that by six to get 63.66 miles or 336,125 feet. Cut that by 1% since we'll need an engine every 100 cars or so and we have 332764. We'll call a passenger car 85 feet including linkages, so we can have about 3915 passenger cars in that 63.66 mile stretch. A passenger car can hold maybe 100 people. So, a decent upper limit, without overloading, for people the conventional train system can carry per hour is 391,500, which is about 117 times as many as the hyperloop. That's a silly number of course. To maintain that rate you would need 23490 passenger cars and around 235 engines.

      So, anyway, it looks like conventional trains could certainly carry more passengers on one set of tracks based on the numbers musk gives and the numbers I've roughed out for trains. On the other hand, there's no particularly good reason you couldn't stack hyperloop tubes on top of each other and next to each other to achieve more capacity.

  11. Goddard's "turbine driven by rocket blast" is essentially a jet engine, just outboard. What a genius.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    1. Re:Nice by Teun · · Score: 2
      Turboprop it's known as.

      Or these days (high-bypass)Turbofan.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  12. Mass transit by pe1chl · · Score: 2

    Even those ideas for mass transit that did work out are not always a success.
    It appears to be difficult to predict the usage of such a network.
    We got a highspeed rail line but nobody is using it. Existing connections had to
    be terminated before some people forcefully started using this train (at higher tariffs).
    And specially built trains that were ordered for a lower priced service were a total disaster.

    1. Re:Mass transit by jythie · · Score: 2

      What is even worse then predicting usage patterns is predicting political currents. Much of the relative state between air, road, and rail today is a product of the political situation each of those industries exist in.

    2. Re:Mass transit by hedwards · · Score: 1

      What highspeed rail where? I'm pretty sure people use the one they have in Europe, I'm pretty sure people are using the one in China. We don't have any in the US, which is why nobody uses them.

    3. Re:Mass transit by pe1chl · · Score: 1

      Highspeed rail in the Netherlands. We have a small country, so when a highspeed rail
      is constructed every city wants a stop along it, and cities are only 30km apart here.
      Furthermore, when they ask me "would you take the highspeed rail to Paris" I probably
      would answer yes, but it would not be more often than once every 2 years or so. Not a
      basis for a regular train service.
      So what we got was a highspeed rail with a surcharge, nobody using it so they had to
      stop the regular service to force the users over to it. There was a special train built for
      "local" service, but it had so many defects that it was removed from service and there
      now is a big dispute with the manufacturer.
      The problem with trains is that everything is so close here, and people who can afford
      the ticket price normally can afford to travel by car and have the advantage of door-to-door
      travel. E.g. the highspeed rail would be ideal for government officials to travel to Brussels,
      but I'm sure they use their car-with-driver instead.

    4. Re:Mass transit by BranMan · · Score: 1

      With that many stops, could staggering them be the way to go? Run 3 small trains at a time instead of 1 big one and each one stops at every 3rd regular stop. If they all take the same amount of time at each stop along the way, they could all travel much much faster - effectively the stops are now 90km apart for each train, and each makes only 1/3rd as many stops. Scale to 4 or 5 trains to have a *really* high speed rail that still services everyone.

      Just make sure you get on the *right* train.

  13. That remins me of "The Big Bus" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A nuclear powered bus built for cross country trips. The Big Bus

    1. Re:That remins me of "The Big Bus" by Gregg+M · · Score: 1

      A nuclear powered bus built for cross country trips. The Big Bus

      The Big Bus is great. But Supertrain is funny for other reasons.

      --
      Linux is only free if your time has no value. Windows is only free if you threaten to use Linux.
    2. Re:That remins me of "The Big Bus" by Gregg+M · · Score: 1
      Oops

      But Supertrain is funny for other reasons.

      --
      Linux is only free if your time has no value. Windows is only free if you threaten to use Linux.
  14. Bus Image by Pazuzu's+petals · · Score: 3, Informative
  15. Buses and the future that never came by stevegee58 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The displacement of the inexpensive, efficient and reliable urban transportation known as "street cars" by diesel-powered buses was one of the gravest errors in urban planning. How's that for a future that never came? Expanding the street car rather than replacing it would have reduced the smog so endemic in the 60's and 70's.

    1. Re:Buses and the future that never came by jythie · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but it would have been more expensive, and 'lower taxes' has been a major rallying cry over the last half century. Not to mention the idea of planning has become pretty demonized, with the magical 'the market will fix it' becoming increasingly dominant. So public patience for thought out infrastructure that will be in place for decades is pretty thin. Short term fixes are hot, and busses fit into that mold pretty well.

    2. Re:Buses and the future that never came by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See, here's the thing. The market can fix it by just not building a road to the subdivisions in fuckingowhere.

    3. Re:Buses and the future that never came by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      Why would they do that? It seems that generally the people deciding to build roads to the middle of nowhere just so happen to either own the land there, or have financial interests in the development companies who do.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    4. Re:Buses and the future that never came by stevegee58 · · Score: 1

      I found a wikipedia link to what I'm babbling about:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy

    5. Re:Buses and the future that never came by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No way would it be more expensive. the street car infrastructure tracks and overhead lines) was long since installed and paid for. It was quite a job to rip them out. That's what army general Groves did before he built the Pentagon and ran the World War II, atom bomb, Manhattan Project. Funny thing, General Motors made out like a bandit selling those diesel buses. Undoubtably just a coincidence.

      There are still some trolleys running. The Green Line in Boston. Works just fine.

      As far as air tubes for rapid transit goes, US mail in NYC once went between post offices by pneumatic tubes underground. Got abandoned during the Eisenhower years when "Engine Charlie" Wilson, ex-GM, was running the Defense Department. Just what was needed, more trucks on Manhattan streets. 'Specially if you were making trucks. "What's good for General Motors is good for the country" (a slight misquote).

    6. Re:Buses and the future that never came by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All of the buses around here are powered by natural gas.

    7. Re:Buses and the future that never came by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with street cars is that they only work where the tracks are. Once the demographics shift, the tracks no longer go where the people live and/or work, and they are useless. You can build new tracks to where the people move to, but only if the streets aren't already built or are already 20 feet wider than they need to be.

      While actually driving streetcars is more efficient than driving buses, the general operation is much less efficient. Maintaining the trackage and overhead wires is expensive. Maintaining the roads is free with the fuel (road taxes are built into the price of on-road Diesel).

      You can create a new bus route just by printing up some maps and timetables, and getting the drivers to memorize them. The only expensive part is making the bus stops (benches, shelters). Creating a new streetcar route means acquiring rights-of-way, laying track (not just for the route itself, but all the way to the garage/maintenance yard), putting in overhead wires, and so on. The hardest part is probably finding a place to put the tracks, which could take years (requiring eminent domain battles, politics, commitees, ...) and might end up going nowhere.

      It's not hard to see why buses have replaced streetcars. You may note that in some cities there are electric buses that run via overhead wires. This is like streetcars that don't require the tracks. That gives you some of the added efficiency, with no additional rights-of-way being required.

      dom

    8. Re:Buses and the future that never came by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Inexpensive? In comparison to what, much more expensive subway or light-capacity rail? Sure. Inexpensive in comparison to Bus Rapid Transit or local bus systems? Not hardly.

      Efficient? Perhaps at displacing it's energy production to a singular large facility, somewhere else. You don't magically get Joules to move metal and man just because it's on rails rather than rubber wheels.

      Reliable? Nope. If a rail transit vehicle breaks down, you have to get it out of the way before the rest of the system can move. If a bus breaks down, other vehicles can go around it, or route around it on parallel streets.

      And here's a couple things that streetcar systems can't do that bus systems can:
        - move to where the traffic is, if patterns shift 5 years after the line opens
        - continue operating in inclement weather because you can use additional traction devices on tires
        - expand for much less capital cost by using existing road infrastructure rather than building $100M/mile rails and overhead electrical
        - operate within existing traffic, rather than removing existing capacity to make way for rails, or chance having the rails blocked by other vehicles sharing the lane

      The modern streetcar is a joke. And, as it turns out, an incredibly expensive one.

  16. but... by pakar · · Score: 1

    Quite a few of the images there includes technology that we use in transportation today...

  17. "Not surprisingly, it never happened.'" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it didn't happen it was because people didn't make it happen.

    You shouldn't confuse your own accomplishment (or lack thereof) for a static variable outside your influence.

    That mind set will never accomplish anything. You predicted it first!

  18. Popular Science - Nuclear Powered RVs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I was young I subscribed to Popular Science. I remember an article about how someday there would be these enormous highways and that people would drive what would now be called nuclear powered RVs. People would drive around between cities on these huge roads and when they reached a city they would park and drive a smaller car kept in the back.

    1. Re:Popular Science - Nuclear Powered RVs by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      when they reached a city they would park and drive a smaller car kept in the back.

      The funny thing about these plans is that back then they understood that people were not going to give up their car.

      These days nobody bothers to try and figure out how to get the car into the mass transport system anymore, then they whine when everyone would rather drive.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    2. Re:Popular Science - Nuclear Powered RVs by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Sounds like The Who's failed Lifehouse album.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:Popular Science - Nuclear Powered RVs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember that article and I thought it was a good idea for people who traveled great distances daily. Of course that was before the amount of cars and cost to build roads kept increasing. The problem with having a very fast transit from one point to another is simple, why would many people want to go only from point A to B then to point A from B ? To fund this is crazy expensive then to have enough paying passengers to keep it going is questionable. If the thought is a great deal of people from surounding areas would transit to a hyperloop entry point isn't totally valid because of road congestion. Look at current daily traffic around major airports that offer trasnsit to 100's of locations including overseas. Good reading but doubt it will go beyond the idea phase.

    4. Re:Popular Science - Nuclear Powered RVs by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      These days nobody bothers to try and figure out how to get the car into the mass transport system anymore, then they whine when everyone would rather drive.

      The problem is that today we have such a broad variety of cars. If we mandated them down to a smaller size with uniform attachment points we might load them onto trains. Or, the problem is that we don't have room for lots of parking in the places where we'd need it. Etc.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Popular Science - Nuclear Powered RVs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These days nobody bothers to try and figure out how to get the car into the mass transport system anymore

      In the UK the 'park and ride' concept (drive to out of town car park, get frequent bus or tram into town) is pretty successful in many larger towns and cities. And most railway stations have appropriately sized car parks.

  19. Article cited sponsored by the Automobile Industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Their usual approach to preventing technological advance is to claim to be "the experts in the field" get involved anyway they can, and then make things so expensive they fail. An example: The BART system in San Francisco cost more, per seat, than the per seat cost of the modern jet liners of the day.

  20. Favorite part of the hyperloop photo... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    ...is the seat belt the passengers are wearing, complete with little red buckle. As if only a lap belt would really protect someone (i) in a collision at 800 MPH and (ii) seated in a reclining position. Adorable.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Favorite part of the hyperloop photo... by Eivind · · Score: 1

      There's swimvests on planes too -- please look up for me a few examples of situations where those have saved lives ?

    2. Re:Favorite part of the hyperloop photo... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

      There's swim vests on planes too -- please look up for me a few examples of situations where those have saved lives ?

      Reminds me of an old joke about a Lufthansa flight about to "land" in the ocean - told in a heavy German accent, of course. Over the intercom, the pilot says for those passengers that can swim to get on the left side of the plane with their vests on and, after the plans lands, to swim out to the rafts, then says, "and for those passengers that cannot swim... thank you for flying Lufthansa Airlines."

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    3. Re:Favorite part of the hyperloop photo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not the reason for the seat belts. You are confusing things. The reason for the seat belts are somewhat heavy accelerations needed to get up to and down from 1200 km/h. And of course emergency braking.

  21. What a terrible article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "There have been stupid transportation ideas in the past, the Hyperloop is dumb" seems to be the extent of the authors argument.

  22. Urbam legends. by westlake · · Score: 1

    The displacement of the inexpensive, efficient and reliable urban transportation known as "street cars" by diesel-powered buses was one of the gravest errors in urban planning.

    The streetcar wasn't all that efficient, cheap or reliable.

    The humble Ford Model T cost about 1 cent a mile to operate --- in an era when a streetcar ticket cost 5 cents. The Ford provided portal to portal service for a family of five plus dog and cargo.

    You could shop the big downtown department stores, take in a movie, buy your groceries at the new A&P. Unless you were shopping for something like a piano or a sofa you would never again see a surcharge for merchant home delivery. The savings added up quickly.

    The streetcar lines had tracks, cars and overheads to maintain. Most were in deep financial trouble before World War I.

    1. Re:Urbam legends. by Ichijo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The humble Ford Model T cost about 1 cent a mile to operate --- in an era when a streetcar ticket cost 5 cents.

      Operating costs include not just gasoline but also maintenance, insurance, registration, and parking.

      Other costs of owning a car include depreciation, loan servicing, and the opportunity cost of capital.

      And then there are hidden costs such as air pollution, carbon emissions, the urban heat island effect, sales and property taxes to build and maintain the roads, and the loss of freedom (and loss of capital utility) to own a home or business without the government forcing you to overbuild your parking lot.

      Far fewer people would drive if not for all of these government incentives and coercion to drive.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    2. Re:Urbam legends. by westlake · · Score: 1

      Operating costs include not just gasoline but also maintenance, insurance, registration, and parking. Other costs of owning a car include depreciation, loan servicing, and the opportunity cost of capital.

      True now. True then.

      But no matter how you cherry pick the numbers, the Ford Model T was still dirt cheap transportation, versatile and affordable. Hobbyist and commercial conversions became legendary: pick-up trucks, delivery vans, lunch wagons, tractors, you name it.

      You cannot escape the expense of building and maintaining a road; even in its prime, the streetcar shared the lanes with an extraordinary amount of traffic.

      The old time streetcar is nostalgic urban fantasy.

      The reality was more like this: http://levyrapidtransit.ca/wp-content/uploads/s-fig8a.jpg

    3. Re:Urbam legends. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Streetcars don't take you where you want to go. They take you from somewhere you aren't to somewhere close to where you want to be. You're left to figure out the rest.

      There has never been a rail-based transit system that can handle end-to-end trips the way that a car can.

  23. The logic is solid as the idea is simplifying by Cogent91 · · Score: 1

    Historical notions were forced to brute force through the 2 main barriers, air resistance and friction. What is being focused on now is purely about removing those barriers, a vacuum eliminating air resistance and magnetic levitation eliminating friction. For the first time ever material science is starting to make the idea look viable. Maybe not yet, but soon hopefully.

    1. Re:The logic is solid as the idea is simplifying by bendilts · · Score: 1

      It's amazing how many people read so little about the Hyperloop that they think it uses magnetic levitation.

  24. Everything Old Is New Again by Forthan+Red · · Score: 2

    New York's first subway, built in 1870s, and long forgotten until a part of it was discovered during excavation, about a decade ago, was the Beach Pneumatic Transit. Created by Alfred Ely Beach, people sat in capsules which were driven through underground tubes via air pressure. A variety of circumstances prevented it from ever being extended beyond its initial demonstration length.

    1. Re:Everything Old Is New Again by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      Created by Alfred Ely Beach, people ...

      So Beach created not only the subway system, but also the people to ride in it? He must have been a very busy guy.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    2. Re:Everything Old Is New Again by tragedy · · Score: 1

      When they discovered it during excavation, was it full of pinkish psychoreactive slime flowing towards the Metropolitan Museum of Art? Did the excavators get put on trial for violating their judicial restraining order?

  25. Hovercraft trains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Surprised noone has brought this up yet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracked_Hovercraft

  26. Fix your political system. by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    That's a symptom of your political system being busted. The congressman should be worried about not being reelected.

    And having worked in the private sector and moved up quite a bit over the years, it's just as bad there if not worse. I've watched companies waste billions just so nobody has to admit they wasted billions (e.g. not take the write off).

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  27. We squandered our future. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    As a 'civilization' we squandered our future on war and prisons.

    The entire Earth is less than 1% of the mass of the solar system. The recoverable resources of the earth are less than 1% of the planet's mass.

    We've spent decades murdering eachother for scraps instead of developing the rest of the solar system.

    Why?

    Because every new frontier brings a loss of control for existing governments and power structures.

  28. Re:Article cited sponsored by the Automobile Indus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, well the LA Metro is cheap and efficient. BART is just horribly managed.

  29. All these Ideas are really great and will work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it is anyone except the government that does it.

  30. Apples to oranges by Natales · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The way this post was presented is totally idiotic. The fact that some of these ideas have been around for a very long time means only that technical feasibility was not there yet. Remember Jules Verne or DaVinci for that matter. Many of their ideas have become normal part of our lives, while many others were just product of a fertile imagination.

    What I really like about the hyperloop is that the idea is old, but it's been re-thought from the perspective of the 21st century, by someone who has the credibility to make things that everyone else said were impossible a fact.

    I, for one, think Elon Musk is one of the greatest minds of our generation, and not only because of the ideas, but because of his attitude of "why not" and "build it and they will come". I'd trust him with my tax dollars any day when I see what he has accomplished, vs. the bozos in the State Government.

    1. Re:Apples to oranges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you. I agree with you 100%.

      What I expected from the article was a well spelled out explanation of why each far-fetched mode of transportation failed, and how Musk's plan falls on a parallel trajectory towards failure. Zero evidence was given on why Hyperloop is a bad idea. The entire write-up can be summed up as "these old fanciful forms of transportation didn't pan out, so logically, neither will this current idea or any other future transportation revolution. Improvements in technology, brilliance of design, and soundness of financial plan are all irrelevant."

      If Hyperloop doesn't get traction now, perhaps we will have to wait until Musk is finished with revolutionizing space travel and the electric car industry. I think you're right. Musk is going to be in the history books along with the Telsa, Newton, and the likes.

    2. Re:Apples to oranges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm wondering if perhaps we should be comparing Elon Musk to Steve Jobs here. Both of them have shown the ability to get things done. Steve Jobs was merely consumer products, but they were significant enough to keep Apple afloat, meanwhile Elon Musk's project have been a bit more spectacular.

  31. Hyperloop is obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The hyperloop is obvious, I've personally thought up similar things in concept (except using magnetic levitation instead of an air cushion) and all the technology to do it already exists (LIM are used on Vancouver's skytrain, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_Innovia_Metro ) it's just a matter of safety, which a vehicle moving at very high speeds is inherently dangerous (contact with the tube walls, external collisions with the tube,) and in the case of an emergency, impossible to escape when enclosed.

    I think it can be done, but it's first practical application would likely be something like Vancouver to Victoria (which is too dangerous and deep to have a bridge built) or something more practical like Anchorage to Seattle, where there's less environmental conflict and airplanes have problems dealing with the arctic. Or why stop there... Anchorage to Petropavlovsk. Miles of sea and wilderness.

  32. shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a shitty way to compare a working design with utter crap

  33. Oh, I saw that one! by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    "In 1930, the magazine Modern Mechanix presented a plan for a "unique bus of the future (that would) duplicate the speed of railroads"
    Oh yeah, I remember that one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNixDlRoMvA

  34. corp. greed ruined most of it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like tire companys killing trams.

  35. Network effects by michaelepley · · Score: 1

    It is in general not very difficult to predict these sorts of networks at a gross level (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe's_law). Most networks scale in value, to the first order approximation, with the number of connected nodes. Simply put, if you have a network with very few nodes (aka stops on a rail line) it costs a lot and/or no one uses it. If you have a network with a lot of nodes, it cost more sure, but it gets used a lot more. Each successive node's value is scales roughly by N squared, where N is the number of nodes. The biggest wonder is that once a viable network is established, that is ever stops being expanded. Of course, not every network is analogous to a telecommunications network, and there are lots of other effects to consider in practice.

  36. A bit pessimistic? by cwsumner · · Score: 1

    He makes it sound like none of that is possible and all of those ideas failed. Ick!
    When you read an idea like that, consider the scale and infrastructure of the Interstate Highway System. That is successful and works. (Even though it needs some work occasionally)
    And before that, the railroads were a huge infrastructure project. And they finally got built, a little at a time.
    To discount all of those ideas is not smart... but then, the writer is being a bit of a troll.

  37. Rip Off by Dabido · · Score: 1

    Those 1930 people were just ripping off the Amtrak Wars series of books!!!! How unoriginal!!!

    --
    Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)
  38. wrong question by gzuckier · · Score: 1

    With modern and future technology you don't need to go anywhere you can teleprescence yourself and it becomes sillier and sillier to transport objects when you can just communicate the plans and create them on site.

    --
    Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.