Slashdot Mirror


'Elon Musk's Hyperloop Is Doomed For the Worst Reason' (bloomberg.com)

schwit1 quotes a Bloomberg column by Virginia Postrel: What makes Musk's Hyperloop plan seem like fantasy isn't the high-tech part. Shooting passengers along at more than 700 miles per hour seems simple -- engineers pushed 200 miles-per-hour in a test this week -- compared to building a tunnel from New York to Washington. And even digging that enormously long tunnel -- twice as long as the longest currently in existence -- seems straightforward compared to navigating the necessary regulatory approvals... The eye-rolling comes less from the technical challenges than from the bureaucratic ones.

With his premature declaration, Musk is doing public debate a favor. He's reminding us of what the barriers to ambitious projects really are: not technology, not even money, but getting permission to try. "Permits harder than technology," Musk tweeted after talking with Los Angeles mayor Eric Garcetti about building a tunnel network. That's true for the public sector as well as the private... SpaceX and its commercial-spaceflight competitors can experiment because Congress and President Barack Obama agreed to protect them from Federal Aviation Administration standards. usk is betting that his salesmanship will have a similar effect on the ground. He's trying to get the public so excited that the political pressures to allow the Hyperloop to go forward become irresistible. He seems to believe that he can will the permission into being. If he succeeds, he'll upend not merely intercity transit but the bureaucratic process by which things get built. That would be a true science-fiction scenario.

304 comments

  1. I know right by tylersoze · · Score: 5, Insightful

    God forbid there should be some oversight in building a ground level supersonic transport system.

    1. Re:I know right by magarity · · Score: 0

      So, are you saying some should = some or some should = practically insurmountable ?
      Since the article is bemoaning some = practically insurmountable and your post appears sarcastic, can we assume that is your preference?

    2. Re:I know right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think anyone wants to eschew oversight. They want the bureaucratic process to move as fast as tech.

    3. Re:I know right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "Some" is hardly what is going on here. Current regulations are smothering innovation.

      From the article "SpaceX and its commercial-spaceflight competitors can experiment because Congress and President Barack Obama agreed to protect them from Federal Aviation Administration standards." Something similar could be done here.

    4. Re:I know right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course there should. What everyone is saying is that just the permitting to do this is so ridiculously burdensome that it's harder than the sum of technical and logistical challenges of building a 700mph transport system in the longest tunnel every constructed.

      Thats both obscene and entirely likely. Meanwhile, thousands of peoples jobs depend on keeping those processes as terrible as possible.

    5. Re:I know right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How ground level and tunnel work in the same context?

      Captcha: nonlogical

    6. Re:I know right by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 0

      Sounds like people are already coming with excuses for failure, just in case. We wouldn't want Elon himself bearing any responsibility.

    7. Re:I know right by Rockoon · · Score: 0

      I agree. tylersoze clearly wants to continue the insurmountable oversight.

      tylersoze must have a bet or something on this, which is very selfish of him. Greedy in fact.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    8. Re:I know right by hord · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My uncle is a civil engineer that was asked to work on a show about the Hoover Dam. He said it couldn't be built today due to regulatory approval. It's weird how people aren't saying no oversight... they're saying reasonable oversight. We get stuff like Hoover Dam.

    9. Re:I know right by vadim_t · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, let's see the details on what exactly those unsurmountable regulations are. The article contains zero detail on the specifics.

      Depending on what Musk intends to do, and where his stuff is going to go, and in what manner, it being unsurmountable may be perfectly reasonable. Or it may be not.

    10. Re: I know right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Regulations should be practically insurmountable for the type of shit sandwich that the Hyperloop is.

    11. Re:I know right by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 0

      My uncle is a civil engineer that was asked to work on a show about the Hoover Dam. He said it couldn't be built today due to regulatory approval.

      Nice anecdote, but how about including at least a shred of supporting evidence that the statement is true?

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    12. Re:I know right by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Funny

      I can't imagine why people think that "move fast and break things" isn't a suitable standard for civil engineering. Must be communist influences.

    13. Re:I know right by Aristos+Mazer · · Score: 2

      By definition, that cannot happen. Only after tech X lets us do something new can we start studying the impact of doing that thing. It can take years to decide whether we SHOULD do X and, if so, how to SAFELY do X. And that's before you consider the people whose lives are embedded in the current tech -- disruption is nice, but better for people when we can provide a transition period.

      You might find interesting reading looking at Amish procedures for deciding whether to adopt new technology. There's a whole protocol for deciding how it should work. Not my cup of tea, but at least it is a framework for technology adoption... maybe something like it would work more broadly?

    14. Re: I know right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because as a species we're so well equpped to handle current technology...we're still killing and starving our own species, but zomg technologyz! progress! innovationz!

    15. Re:I know right by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think it's important to note that Musk's tweet was related to his desire to build a bunch of tunnels under LA rather than about the coast-to-coast hype loop.

      Musk is used to running companies where they iterate fast and solve problems as they come up; but that doesn't seem like a good approach when it comes to digging tunnels under a populated and developed area.

      In the Seattle area, we've seen a lot of tunnel digging over the past several years (the best known had lots of well-publicised problems, but there have been several others which were mostly problem-free). The thing is... you're digging under skyscrapers, you're digging under bridges, you're digging under the permanent waterline, you're digging through man-made hills with neighborhoods built on top of them... there's a lot that can and does go wrong, and there's not much margin for error.

      While it's currently fashionable to rail against "unreasonable" and "insurmountable" regulations - the burden of proof here should be on the people complaining.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    16. Re:I know right by vux984 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hydro electric power used to be one of the darlings of the energy sector. It was clean, it was safe, it was renewable. The only draw back was the local environmental effects of the dam, changing the river flow, creating a lake; but those were deemed acceptable.

      Now the environmental damage caused by building a dam is an all but insurmountable hurdle.

      Not to mention labour costs and standards increases that price such megaprojects out of reach.

      Oh... you probably wanted some cites right?

      https://www.marketplace.org/20...

      http://wizbangblog.com/2012/07...

      http://thehill.com/regulation/...

    17. Re:I know right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The identification and acquisition of easements is hardly insurmountable.
      When Level3 was building their network, they had a large staff devoted to that very thing.
      More recently, gas pipeline carriers have demonstrated their ability to use eminent domain to gain access to corridors and easements.

      Point being, the commentator is hardly pointing out anything new and any business venture would have to factor this into their planning.

    18. Re:I know right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Particularly in Los Angeles, the place where the ground liquefies during the next big earth quake. The simulation models probably take quite a lot of super-computer time and ground studies to even pass the basics of demonstrating some assurances to the city officials.

    19. Re:I know right by Balial · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why would you want to build another hoover dam today? California produces more than twice the power from the hoover dam from wind. 96 people died in the construction of the hoover dam.

      It's almost as if technology changes adjust the cost/benefit of various projects, obsoleting once acceptable ideas.

      To bring it back to the article: Digging vast tunnels under major metropolitan areas like LA, New York and DC without any oversight is ridiculous.

    20. Re: I know right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, here's a list with many examples of how regulatory hurdles have been cleared to make the right of way for new infrastructure.

    21. Re:I know right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, let's see the details on what exactly those unsurmountable regulations are.

      "Insurmountable regulations" is just another way of saying "You won't allow us to maximize our profits by completely ignoring the safety of others". it is essentially the same as the currently popular phrase "job-killing regulations" which is repeated thousands of times daily despite zero evidence that any regulation has ever "killed" any jobs.

      When you buy food at your local grocery store you have never once worried that it would make you sick. When you turn on your television you have never once worried that it would explode and burn down your house. Plane crashes and bridges collapsing are so rare that they are a big story when they happen. You live a live that is very safe and comfortable and it's because of all those terrible regulations.

      But don't worry. Der Trumpenfuhrer will fix all that. He has vowed to eliminate all those terrible regulations. And when Elon Musk's hyperlloop damages your property, you''l just have to suck it up and stop being such a cry-baby liberal.

    22. Re:I know right by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      God forbid there should be some oversight in building a ground level supersonic transport system.

      "some oversight" does not mean that the permit has to be larger than the tunnel boring machine.

      Virginia Postrel is my favorite columnist. She is the literary equivalent of John Stossel.

    23. Re:I know right by plopez · · Score: 2

      You forgot "lack of free flowing river to dam". The western US for all practical reasons has no capacity left. Also horribly expensive. See this abstract and note that their model *excludes* inflation, substantial debt servicing, environmental, and social costs.

      Dams are scams

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    24. Re:I know right by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      You had me until you suggesting the amish as a model of technological adoption. LOL

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    25. Re:I know right by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "Particularly in Los Angeles, the place where the ground liquefies during the next big earth quake. "

      Since the article is about a line between Washington and New York, nobody gives a shit about L.A.

    26. Re:I know right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GOVERNMENT and RELIGION are the SINGLE BIGGEST HOLDUPS to the PROGRESS of HUMAN CIVILIZATION the WORLD has EVER KNOWN.
      BOTH of them are COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY.

      Spend a week thinking about how you can actually work to accomplish things independantly, voluntarily, and without their arbitrary force, rule, and taking... over you.

      Have a nice day.

    27. Re:I know right by careysub · · Score: 0

      Virginia Postrel is my favorite columnist. She is the literary equivalent of John Stossel.

      Thanks for pointing this out. I fully agree. Postrel is exactly like Stossel.

      Stossel is an ignorant corporate shill and a flaming jerk, but if that floats your boat then so be it.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    28. Re:I know right by vtcodger · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm a little surprised that musk doesn't seem to have anticipated the regulatory issue. More important, he doesn't seem to be familiar with Seattle's tunneling effort in its attempt to replace the Alaska Way Viaduct. That (expensive) project is WAY over budget and WAY late due largely to encountering a steel pipe where it didn't expect one. The pipe broke the boring machine which then required a secondary hole/tunnel be drilled to get access to the damaged machinery. Boring tunnels in modern urban areas is a lot more complex than folks (including Musk?) think.

      The other big relatively recent urban tunneling effort in the US was Boston's Big Dig which also was way late and way over budget. I think it was a "dig a huge ditch, put a transportation tube at the bottom then fill over it operation" not a tunnel bore. But here's a quote from Wikipedia.

      In addition to political and financial difficulties, the project faced several environmental and engineering obstacles. The downtown area through which the tunnels were to be dug was largely landfill, and included existing Red Line and Blue Line subway tunnels as well as innumerable pipes and utility lines that would have to be replaced or moved. Tunnel workers encountered many unexpected geological and archaeological barriers, ranging from glacial debris to foundations of buried houses and a number of sunken ships lying within the reclaimed land.

      Tunneling through urban areas does not seem to be a project for the faint of heart.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    29. Re:I know right by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

      Your uncle is forgetting most of the "good" spots to build a dam are taken. A good dam needs elevation change, a large well ginormous really area you can flood and the owners of that land are now sol. In central texas there is a chain of several dams for the colorado. They are building a very small dam below austin, but when I was talking to an LCRA employee, they were lamenting it is basically flat from here to houston, so not much capacity from the new dam. Another problem is over 100 people died building the hoover, which is another problem with dams.

    30. Re:I know right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The bloody summary talks about the LA expansion and the permitting process associated with it. Dammit!

    31. Re:I know right by hord · · Score: 1

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?... - At 4:06 you can see him pointing to some engineering plans of the dam. His commentary in the show doesn't reflect it, but he told me personally that when he was approached his first response was that it was impossible under current civil code. The producer said he better come up with something because otherwise there wouldn't be a show.

    32. Re:I know right by hord · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They didn't have wind turbines back when it was built. Why don't you use period-appropriate arguments. We are talking about regulatory hurdles preventing the creation of infrastructure which people complain about almost non-stop. My point is that we might be preventing the building of better infrastructure today because we are afraid of the environmental costs. What about the loss of benefit to society?

    33. Re:I know right by Teun · · Score: 1

      I assume this tunnel is to cover a greater distance, hence it can be dug much deeper and below many of these issues.
      Not that there are no different problems at greater depth...

      But looking at the slow but eventually successful tunnelling of for example the Amsterdam Metro, even outright swampland under a major city is no reason to stop the work.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    34. Re: I know right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering America has some pretty shitty infrastructure, it's clear that those who claim to know what they're doing are failing as well.

    35. Re: I know right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget corporations that have unhinged from humanity in search of the almighty dollar.

      Without *some* government, corporations would enslave us.

    36. Re:I know right by Aristos+Mazer · · Score: 1

      :-) I did say *like* it... the procedure, not necessarily the particular moral measures. :-)

    37. Re:I know right by knightghost · · Score: 2

      So dig deeper. Go under all the pipes and load bearing areas.

    38. Re:I know right by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      Meh. If everything goes fine, that just proves that regulation is unnecessarily burdensome. If not; it's just "disrupting legacy infrastructure", and the investors love that. Can't lose!

    39. Re: I know right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Grow up, you sound like a thirteen-year-old who gets his world view from comic books. And it's means it is. If you can't get that right, what else don't you know?

    40. Re:I know right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Other problems then.

      Firstly - ground conditions - it's lovely to tunnel quickly through clay, but it's really not fun to tunnel through gravels, sands, or solid rock. These add cost and time to projects. Look at London, the south barely has an underground network because of this problem. Even a modern line - Crossrail 2 to be built in a decade - has had to change routes because of ground conditions.

      Secondly, when in use, heat is generated. Just look at the problems the deep level underground systems have in removing heat.

      However for Musk, his plans are car sleds. That means the best place to run most tunnels is under freeways, rather than caring about better routes for a rail network. The plan is to take premium road traffic from the freeway onto the high speed final ten miles or so. TBH this sounds like moving the problem, but it's his money.

      Hyperloop is another issue entirely, where you can build it overground until you get to the city, and it may be reasonable to interface with public transport for the final few miles instead of deal with tunnels and stations.

    41. Re:I know right by mikael · · Score: 2

      My guess is that he should be doing what Singapore did decades ago. Build a GIS map of all pipes, cables, conduits, sewers, concrete blocks, boulders and anything else underground. Then use that data for his projects, sell it to others and use it get utility companies to coordinate their work so that the same road doesn't get dug up several times.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    42. Re:I know right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The dwarves tried that approach. It didn't work very well.

    43. Re:I know right by blindseer · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Why would you build another Hoover Dam if 96 people died building it? Because it's quite likely 150 people would die producing the same energy from wind.

      https://www.nextbigfuture.com/...

      If the goal is safe energy production in the USA then nuclear is at the top. Next comes, by a wide margin, solar and hydro. In fourth comes wind.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    44. Re: I know right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not really, the infrastructure that's failing id's mostly decades past the point when they planned to replace it.

      What they failed to plan for was future politicians cutting taxes for the wealthy and not having money for maintenance and replacement.

    45. Re: I know right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is this a troll post? People just want anything dug underneath them or hung above them?

      I don't, that's for sure. Even with regulation you get plenty of mining disasters, bridge collapses, etc.

      But hey, all in the name of progress!

    46. Re:I know right by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Don't you have a Venezuelan economy to run or something?

    47. Re:I know right by plopez · · Score: 1

      oops forgot the link http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    48. Re:I know right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good thing we've already dammed up almost all of the dammable rivers! The grand canyon will always be the one that got away...

    49. Re:I know right by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      That information already exists though a lot of it is on paper. There are a few exceptions where some people didn't log something or logged it wrong which is why on occasion you hear about some construction job digging through a cable. But the reason why it isn't more often is because cities already know where almost everything is. The only thing that can be done is to computerize it, which is still a huge task.

    50. Re:I know right by colin_young · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, that information does exist.

      And sometimes it's even accurate.

    51. Re:I know right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you have a Venezuelan economy to run or something?

      He is too busy masturbating to pictures of Bernie Sanders.

    52. Re:I know right by Balial · · Score: 1

      Huh? Period arguments? That's the whole point.

      "The hoover dam wouldn't be approved today!". Perhaps that's right. But it was back in the day. And it was built. So if we're ignoring period arguments, it's absolutely irrelevant what today's regulations might or might not do to its approval.

      The point is, if it wasn't for the vast abundance of gas, solar, wind, nuclear etc. there probably wouldn't be such a big oversight in building a huge dam with possibly catastrophic outcomes.

      Same as, if LA, DC and NYC were towns of 100 people, nobody would care if someone dug a hole right under them.

    53. Re:I know right by Balial · · Score: 1

      What's the worst case failure mode of the hoover dam or nuclear vs. a few wind turbines?

    54. Re: I know right by Jesus+H+Rolle · · Score: 1

      In central texas there is a chain of several dams for the colorado.

      To clarify: the Texas Colorado is not related to the famous Colorado River.

    55. Re:I know right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fairness he is right. The hoover damn had more than 100 people die building it, completely unacceptable by todays standards and it flooded vast regions of the environment which you would have a fuck of a time getting approval to destroy that much of the environment nowadays. Really the standards back then meant you could get some things approved that would be pretty well unacceptable today. The reality though is these are actually quite reasonable regulations in most peoples eyes, the damage done by Hoover is now historical so no one complains.

    56. Re: I know right by mSparks43 · · Score: 1

      has there been any progress on getting passengers in and out of the tunnel yet?

    57. Re: I know right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US had good public transportation but then car companies came and it was literally ripped off and dumped into the sea.

    58. Re:I know right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it is essentially the same as the currently popular phrase "job-killing regulations" which is repeated thousands of times daily despite zero evidence that any regulation has ever "killed" any jobs.

      It's difficult to prove that something didn't happen that would have otherwise happened but for different circumstances. However, that doesn't mean that it's not true. To use an example from tech, many startups know that the more hurdles you put in the way of completing a task, the less likely people are to complete it. Every new hoop along the way is going to lose some number of people until eventually nobody remains who can or is willing to jump through all of the hoops. This is why startups try to make their products as easy and convenient to use as possible. Or to use a more specific recent example, take the Affordable Care Act Exchanges. The Donald Trump administration cut the advertising budget to zero during the critical open enrollment period. Have you heard anything about enrolling for 2018, even a single ad or announcement? What if the website konks out again and the Trump Administration declines to fix it? Eventually you've created so much friction that nobody signs up. It's the same thing with regulations and jobs. Every regulation is one more straw on the camel's back. Nobody can say exactly which jobs didn't happen or which regulation was the straw that broke the camel's back, but intuitively we know what happens when you hassle people or give them a hard time so why should we expect regulations to be harmless? That seems improbable at best.

    59. Re:I know right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Hoover Dam was part of the United States' WPA, (Works Project Administration). It got many able bodied people jobs during the Great Depression. The effects of these projects on Mother Earth mattered little, people had jobs was all that mattered then. https://owlcation.com/humanities/The-Great-Depressions-The-Top-Five-Public-Works-Projects-of-the-New-Deal

    60. Re:I know right by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Why would you want to build another hoover dam today? California produces more than twice the power from the hoover dam from wind. 96 people died in the construction of the hoover dam.

      It's almost as if technology changes adjust the cost/benefit of various projects, obsoleting once acceptable ideas.

      The problem with wind and solar energy is it's intermittent, or in technical terms, "non-dispatchable". What this means is simply, you may turn on the lights, and nothing comes - the supply may not be able to meet the demand. It's why they make giant turbine farms where they do - but there's always a risk that it could be in the middle of summer and people turn on the AC and nothing happen because as part of the baking heat, the winds stop blowing. You hope solar can take up the slack, but then it's an arid night and... you bake.

      That's non-dispatchable electricity - you're really beholden to the environment to have the energy when you need it.

      A hydroelectric dam is dispatchable. Because of the reservoir behind it, it can supply power when you need it - in essence it's a giant battery. So it can be a hot, windless night, and you can still have your air conditioners running because while the wind and solar farms aren't generating power, a hydroelectric dam can generate power. Other forms of dispatchable power include nuclear, coal, natural gas. Granted, it takes time to get them up and running from stopped, but they are available and ready. (and of all of those, the hydroelectric dam is a renewable energy source, not consuming anything after initial construction).

      So while everyone tries to make "modern renewable" (solar, wind, run-of-the-river hydro) energy dispatchable, the unfortunate reality is, it isn't. It's why we have talk about grid-scale batteries - because none of those sources are constant and able to rapidly shift production capacity as needed.

      It's still why people still talk about a base load - you need dispatchable power to make up for the times when the wind stops blowing (or, blows too hard) and the sun stops shining. Else one will have to start living... intermittently. That's what makes the real market value of dispatchable electricity almost 10 times more than that of non-dispatchable sources. When you need power, and the cheap wind/solar isn't available, you need the big guys who can ramp up production.

      of course, people don't like hydroelectric dams because they do consume a lot of land and there's a bit of greenhouse gases released because of it, but it's one of the few dispatchable sources that are entirely renewable, and doesn't produce greenhouse gases to operate. It's clean, but it's old-school, which is why modern energy peddlers hate it.

    61. Re:I know right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What mattered then was these projects gave the American people hope. Whether or not these WPA projects made sense in the short or long run was irrelevant. People had reason to believe that the government cared about the vast number of out of work people. Did it waste enormous amounts of money? Hell yes. Did it make sense to build some of these projects, that can be debated on forever. Bottom line is shit got done, people had pride in themselves, they had money in their pockets to spend, which improved the economy. These projects restored faith that things in America were getting better. Whether or not these projects were sensible or not did not really matter. People long out of work had jobs and dispsable income to spend, and the economy improved greatly because of these projects.

    62. Re:I know right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The other issue is finance. A dam takes a long time to build which ties up capital in a rapidly changing energy market. Wind can be deployed in a more incremental manner and so is less risky for investors.

      Additionally, for a dam of the type the Hoover represents, a geological surprise could be very costly, but wind doesn't really have the same geological risk profile.

      Where hydro wins out is its relative concentration of power and being dispatched least, which makes it a good supplement for wind to be used when the wind isn't blowing, bit getting a market in place to make that attractive to investors would be difficult, even if it would prevent the lights going off.

    63. Re:I know right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, Japan recently had a Worst Case Scenario Failure of a nuclear reactor: a Level 7 incident.

      No-one died as a result of that incident.

    64. Re:I know right by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3

      It's probably more to do with not running into other stuff buried underground than safety or environmental issues.

      The industry I work in (water) obviously has a lot of buried infrastructure, mostly pipes. They don't know exactly where a lot of it is... There are maps, many of them more than a century old, hand drawn and based on landmarks that don't exist any more. Probably weren't drafted with any great accuracy anyway.

      Okay, so you go deeper. Everyone is deeper than the last project.... Well, that doesn't really work either. And in any case, if you dig a tunnel under a building, you might affect that building in some way. Depends how tall it is, what the foundations are made of, what the ground under it is made of etc.

      That's why there are regulations. We found out the hard way that digging tunnels under cities carries some risks that we really need to try to mitigate.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    65. Re:I know right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >So while everyone tries to make "modern renewable" (solar, wind, run-of-the-river hydro) energy dispatchable, the unfortunate reality is, it isn't. It's why we have talk about grid-scale batteries - because none of those sources are constant and able to rapidly shift production capacity as needed.
      Maybe you should do your research again, because windpower is very reliable if you put down turbines over thousands of miles. geographical spreading removes the intermittent component of wind.

    66. Re:I know right by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      So what you are saying is that you couldn't build the Hoover dam today because it would be too environmentally damaging and you'd have to pay the labourers a reasonable wage.

      The original story is not looking quite so good now.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    67. Re:I know right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      touch my no-no parts

    68. Re:I know right by golden_hands · · Score: 1

      Well Japan passed a law to keep the real facts and statistics on Fukushima hidden. In addition, they can just fail to count the number of people dying of cancer thanks to this for the next couple of 100 years. The radiation ridden water from Fukushima that continues to be released travels all the way to the US Pacific coast.

    69. Re:I know right by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      That's great; how about left?

    70. Re:I know right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet wind turbines kill more people (and way more birds).

    71. Re:I know right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go live in a country with no government then. There's quite a few where this applies in parts at least. Make sure to post regularly about how wonderful it is - for about 5 minutes until you're killed.

    72. Re:I know right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      true now, but the question was "what if we were trying to build the hoover dam today", implying that it's not there and therefore that river has capacity.

    73. Re:I know right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      since the original notion was "what if we were trying to build the dam today", there's an implication that it is not in fact already there, meaning that one good spot is available.

    74. Re:I know right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ooh, good point. What if the wind isn't blowing? What if it's nighttime when you need that power?

      It's almost like you might want wind turbines and solar panels in more than one place!

    75. Re:I know right by Shotgun · · Score: 2

      When you buy food at your local grocery store you have never once worried that it would make you sick. When you turn on your television you have never once worried that it would explode and burn down your house. Plane crashes and bridges collapsing are so rare that they are a big story when they happen. You live a live that is very safe and comfortable and it's because of all those terrible regulations.

      Grocery stores would poison you, electronics companies would burn your house down, and airlines would be crashing their own planes if it were not for regulations. Because, those activities are so profitable?

      Remind me not to get help from you the next time I'm writing a business plan.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    76. Re:I know right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's entirely the wrong question:

      In ideal risk management, a prioritization process is followed whereby the risks with the greatest loss (or impact) and the greatest probability of occurring are handled first, and risks with lower probability of occurrence and lower loss are handled in descending order.

      The nuclear plant may have a larger possible impact, but a smaller chance to happen. Managing both is difficult.

      Also for blindseer's GP post, I don't think anyone agrees: If the goal is safe energy production in the USA...

      That's only part of the goal. We also need cost effective, convenient, reliable ... safety is in there, but only one of the goals and probably not even the most important. We have risky and unsafe jobs all over the industry.

    77. Re:I know right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you want to build another hoover dam today? California produces more than twice the power from the hoover dam from wind. 96 people died in the construction of the hoover dam.

      So? 96 people died. It is a tragedy. It's also the same as one day of car traffic in the US.

      Considering the immense amount of inexpensive, non-CO2/foreign oil/etc, electricity it has generated over the decades it is massively worth it. And that is merely the secondary purpose of the dam. The primary purpose, of preventing floods and providing constant water downstream, outweighs those 96 lives by several orders of magnitude.

      I'm sure there are countless construction workers who would jump at the opportunity given a fair compensation. Even if you were to have doubled the amount each person was paid and given a large insurance policy on each for the unlucky few, it would have been massively worth it.

      If you want to complain about the Hoover Dam, complain about how it it wrecked the ecology of fish migration, or wildlife, or the scenery, or other long-term effects. In comparison to the societal benefits, a one-time loss of 96 lives is less than a rounding error.

    78. Re:I know right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worst case failure modes of:

      Hoover dam: a crack in the dam rapidly spreads, leading to a sudden and catastrophic release of all the water. Every living thing between the dam and the ocean dies, except the more alert subset of the bird population.

      Nuclear fission: two possibilities.
      A) a cold-water accident results in a pile of high-temperature radioactive slag that escapes containment and gets into the groundwater, poisoning the entire cycle of life in a wide area for many aeons. (e.g. China Syndrome, or Hunt for Red October (book))

      B) The nuclear fuel catches fire or otherwise escapes into the atmosphere as tiny radioactive particulate, causing an uptick in cancer rates around the world.
      (e.g. Windscale, Chernobyl)

      Wind turbines: a few nasty possibilities.
      A) Tower attracts a lightning strike, which discharges into the grid and blows out a few states' worth of transformer substations.

      B) Tower falls over, during or after construction, killing anyone in its path, along with any buildings.

      C) Bearing fails at high speed and turbine goes flying off across the countryside with enough force to propel houses like spitwads.

      So, a dam breaking is likely to kill a bunch of people quickly. A nuke leaking is likely to kill a smaller bunch of people more slowly, and cause a larger bunch of people to have to endure chemotherapy and whatnot. A wind farm breaking is likely to knock out the power or smash into things. Clearly, wind is lower risk than the other two, but it's kind of a toss-up between the dam and the nuke.

      However, to look only at that, ignores half the equation. Risk is the product of likelihood and severity - we've only looked at severity. Likelihood, then:

      The dam is definitely going to break someday. No material, man-made or natural, lasts forever. We will probably be able to see it coming, but people will still resist leaving their homes, until they're underwater. We could try getting out in front of that, by draining it and taking it apart before it takes itself apart, but that will also give rise to a political will problem. It would seem that only a 1000-year storm, or a direct meteor strike, could cause sudden unexpected failure, but it seems like a near certainty that someday a town will have to be abandoned.

      The nuke will also definitely degrade, but preventing that disaster is merely a matter of retiring it on schedule. Negligent failure is far more likely, though, due to the closed and secure nature of a nuclear power plant, as well as the inordinate number of small parts that could physically fail. That being said, I can only think of four nuclear accidents big enough to reach public consciousness: Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Windscale, and Fukushima. Only two of those have resulted in wide-scale evacuations.

      The wind towers will definitely fall over someday, and there's a hell of a lot of them in a single farm. That alone raises the likelihood of one of them going down dramatically. Also, they are the only power generation strategy that stores large amounts of kinetic energy in an uncontained apparatus. Put it near a populated area, and someone is going to die when a 100-foot fan blade comes crashing through their house.

      I'd say it's a wash. They all suck.

    79. Re:I know right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes they will. Factories and Power plant belched asthma causing smoke for decades before regulations forced them to start cleaning up their act. Tobacco companies swore that cigarettes didnt cause cancer. Oil companies actively blocked research that showed that the lead in gasoline was causing all kinds of health issues. Factories regularly dumped dangerous chemicals into the ground or water bodies until that damned EPA came into the picture. Asbestos. .... the list is long.

      It is not the things that are immediate cause-and-effect like airplanes crashing that will be affected. It is the slow and indirect stuff that takes years or decades to unfold that will get ignored by businesses because it cannot be easily tied to them in a cause-and-effect chain.

    80. Re:I know right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oversight by whom?

    81. Re:I know right by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Deliberately poisoning you would be unprofitable. Making sure the groceries you buy are devoid of poison is also unprofitable. Making TVs deliberately dangerous is unprofitable (unless you're in cahoots with repair shops, who will get more business that way), but making them deliberately safe is also unprofitable.

      Establishing a reputation for quality can be profitable, but coming into a market with a new company advertising low prices and providing low quality, looting the company, and then leaving the empty husk can also be profitable.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    82. Re:I know right by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The environmental damage is now known, and regulations seek to compensate for indirect external costs. That improves the efficiency of the economy. Labor costs did not rise because of regulation. Labor standards may have, but typically the regulations do permit people to do things.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    83. Re:I know right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you want to build another hoover dam today? California produces more than twice the power from the hoover dam from wind. 96 people died in the construction of the hoover dam.

      Hoover dam was less about generating electricity and more about creating a reservoir for redistributing irrigation water and controlling flood waters, something that is at least as important today as when it was built. Power was a nice side benefit.

    84. Re:I know right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the REAL reason the government doesn't want us burrowing and tunneling is because of all of the alien bases and transportation networks.

      Map of Underground Alien Bases
      Base Entrances

      See? It's on the internet, so it MUST be true!!!!

      I'm in Redding, California, and I've always loved hearing the stories of aliens under Mt. Shasta. Once upon a time I came across a couple maps online showing a supposed underground high-speed railway system connecting various bases. There was one directly under Mt. Shasta that was used for uranium mining and storage, and UFO storage. I never believed any of the stories, but it was interesting to hear them. Some light entertainment!

  2. You mean ... by thadtheman · · Score: 2

    there are too many regulations getting in the way?

    1. Re:You mean ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission. That's what Uber did, and people HATE them.

    2. Re:You mean ... by plopez · · Score: 1

      That's what the shills want you to believe

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    3. Re:You mean ... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission. That's what Uber did, and people HATE them.

      If people hated Uber, then why are they all using it?

      It's the bureaucrats and the medallion owners they protect who hate Uber.

    4. Re: You mean ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because it's cheap to operate unlicensed if you don't pay the drivers even minimum wage.

      I don't think most uber riders know how poorly compensated the drivers are.

  3. Says who by mattwarden · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Huh? My eyes roll for the technical challenges.

    1. Re:Says who by intellitech · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yeah, the tunnel length alone. And then it needs to be almost airtight?

      Technical difficulty will far outweigh the bureaucratic difficulty.

      --
      vos nescitis quicquam, nec cogitatis quia expedit nobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non tota gens pereat.
    2. Re:Says who by Rockoon · · Score: 0, Troll

      We've heard about those technical challenges from Thunderf00t.

      He is eating crow right now for some of his criticisms. I wonder how it tastes.

      Turns out, Musk hired smart people. Who would'a thunk it.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    3. Re:Says who by gweihir · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And that is just it. Europe and Asia have high-speed rail systems. They were really expensive. Don't you think alternatives were not looked at? Oh, wait, they were, for example the Transrapid. Turns out the alternatives are not commercially viable and are technologically problematic.

      My take here is the Musk has some inkling that he will fail on the tech side and is preparing a smokescreen. And, I have to admit, it is an excellent smokescreen as getting the permits needed here may well be infeasible as well.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    4. Re:Says who by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1

      We've heard about those technical challenges from Thunderf00t.
      He is eating crow right now for some of his criticisms.

      [citation needed]

      But yeah, no need to explain what he got wrong, simply assert that he did and mock those who dared to ask serious questions. /s

      Turns out, Musk hired smart people.

      Turns out, smart people can be wrong. :)

    5. Re: Says who by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Oh some paragraph glazes over the technical details with some "this is feasible." Guess that means the whole thing is proven possible!

      Thunderf00t in probably laughing at you.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    6. Re:Says who by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > He is eating crow right now for some of his criticisms. I wonder how it tastes.
      Gonna need some [Citation Needed] on that.

    7. Re:Says who by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've always said his relevancy has been twit based. I mean twit-ter, oc.

    8. Re:Says who by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      luckily, the crust of the earth is 100% static and stationary, and never moves or shakes or shifts! that would be disastrous to a tunnel system dependent on being sealed tight enough to maintain a vaccuum that had humans whizzing around at 700mph.

    9. Re:Says who by olau · · Score: 1

      Turns out the alternatives are not commercially viable and are technologically problematic.

      You are ignoring the fact that this is what Musk is trying to solve. But will it work? We don't know. It's beginning to look like we'll see, though.

      These are not small problems, these are problems requiring huge industrial facitlities.

      If it wasn't for Elon Musk's track record, it would seem ridiculous. But his track record says he'll keep hammering on the problem.

    10. Re:Says who by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Transrapid is both commercially and technologically viable. The Germans just didn't want to let the Chinese copy it completely, and it wasn't absurdly dirt cheap enough for the Chinese anyway.

  4. Money talks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This thing is by and for for the ultra-rich. They will have no problem buying the permits they need.

  5. Ok then by sunking2 · · Score: 2

    We should just give away all the land rights to the public lands and allow him to take any private by eminent domain. The local populace should have no recourse if its something Musk wants.

    1. Re:Ok then by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      It's not just property rights, it's safety. What happens when one of those transport cars catches fire? How do people get out? Do they burn to death or do they open the door and suffocate? What about other safety incidents? Accidents happen, people carry fire on their persons. What about terrorism?

      The regulatory paperwork is there for a reason, it's to make sure when someone builds stuff like this they've actually thought through the safety aspects and have engineered them properly. Accidents happen, even improbable ones and the response should never be to just let those people die. On top of that as you mention you've got property rights but also mineral rights, disruptions to aquifers and all kinds of other issues. This all has to be sorted out before the first shovel full of dirt is moved. If you don't you can cause huge secondary problems, like poisoning an aquifer the people above rely on for drinking water.

    2. Re:Ok then by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Personally, I am pretty torn on this; we are in a regulatory era that turns a 2-year construction project into a 10-15 year process. The immediate impact of this is increasing the cost. However, we don't really need a new era of the robber-barons, and things should be safe.

      If Musk can bore tunnels at a pace of a mile per month this makes fairly long distance tunnels economically viable... but it also means you are stuck working with many different jurisdictions at the same time. If he can do it with zero surface impact along the route, at a safe depth clear of building foundations and utilities, what should the process look like from a regulatory standpoint?

    3. Re:Ok then by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "What happens when one of those transport cars catches fire? "

      They'll just use nonburnable materiel to build it, it's not rocket science, albeit the guy knows rocket science quite well too.

    4. Re:Ok then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like the insulation at Grenfell Tower?

    5. Re:Ok then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Duh! Not used on every floor:
      "Grenfell Tower: fire-proof cladding specified by architects used only on ground floor"

      https://www.theguardian.com/uk...

    6. Re:Ok then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      albeit the guy knows rocket science quite well too.

      No he doesn't. He's hired a bunch of people who know it quite well, but he's a marketing guy. He doesn't know the first thing about getting something in space.

    7. Re:Ok then by Luthair · · Score: 1

      Last year there was a scientist who explained a bunch of flaws with the system. If memory serves, a puncture an inch in diameter is enough to kill everyone in the tunnel, if a car hits anything the riders are dead and it probably punctures the tunnel, killing everyone else.

    8. Re:Ok then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hint: the 2-year construction process requires at least that amount of time for design and mobilization even if it's exempt from all the environmental and safety stuff. It's not designed on the fly during construction; and in this case there's research and development to do too (going on now, by people who will be rolled over by the Musk behemoth once it gets going and takes over all their work). Yes, a lot of it is "just engineering" but that term covers a vast amount of people and computer time before any work hits the ground (or digs in) if you want it to work when you flip the switch.

      I do agree that the "study it to death" approach has probably gone too far; it should be possible to "study it enough" to be satisfied that anything really bad would be a very rare occurrence, preferably with plenty of warning. In the past, that happened, but a combination of laws and lawsuits (not always matching) has pushed things past the point of reasonability. Also, there are procedural things that make it very difficult for a public project to ever be done as quickly as a private one: for instance, no right of way can be purchased until ALL of the environmental work is done for a public project, while for a private project they know what they're going to do so they go ahead and do the detailed engineering and buy the land needed while doing the environmental work. That actually improves the environmental work since it's addressing a well-developed design rather than some concepts, and once approvals are granted work can start within months rather than 2-3 years later after the land is bought and final design done. Once upon a time, public agencies could do that too, but it's a Big Deal requiring all sorts of blessings legal and political to do it now. And Time Is Money - the longer it takes to build, the more it costs, all other things being equal.

  6. Longest tunnel? by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

    Who ever said that the hyperloop will be a tunnel from start to finish? Hyperloop works just as well above ground on concrete pylons. Going alongside highways, through farmland and even going over existing roads is perfectly possible with an elevated hyperloop.

    At the end of the day hyperloop can't have any steep gradients or changes of direction. It'll be tunnels when passing through hills or mountains, and above ground when they land is low lying.

    Similar to railways in that it's mixed above ground and tunnels. Only more so because changes of direction need to be minimised much more.

    There will not be one long tunnel.

    1. Re:Longest tunnel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A hyperloop comprises a sealed tube or system of tubes through which a pod may travel free of air resistance or friction conveying people or objects at optimal speed and acceleration.

      Elon Musk's version of the concept, first publicly mentioned in 2012, incorporates reduced-pressure tubes in which pressurized capsules ride on air bearings driven by linear induction motors and air compressors.

      This hypothetical high-speed mode of transportation would have the following characteristics: immunity to weather, collision free, twice the speed of a plane, low power consumption, and energy storage for 24-hour operations. The name Hyperloop was chosen because it would go in a loop.

    2. Re:Longest tunnel? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Because acquiring the land for your above-ground system is far harder and more expensive than acquiring the land below ground.

    3. Re:Longest tunnel? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Why couldn't it have any steep gradients? As long as change of slope is more gradual than the minimum turning radius, it should be able to handle extremely steep slopes - the steeper the slope the less effort required to levitate the car off the rails. With the maximum slope being determined by the minimum levitation force required to maintain stability.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    4. Re:Longest tunnel? by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      " Going alongside highways, through farmland and even going over existing roads is perfectly possible with an elevated hyperloop."

      In Wuppertal, Germany, they even build public transport over a river, over 100 years ago and it works 'til this very day.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    5. Re:Longest tunnel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The limitation will be the G-forces implied by the turn radius given the speed of travel. Even if the hyperloop is designed with all propulsion on board the vehicle as opposed to the original concepts, it would take miles to slow down and speed up for turns. Every turn, including those to change elevations, has to occur over distances of miles to allow for comfortable 700 mph travel. And you'd be really stupid to design your tunnel for 200 mph because that is what the tech is doing today. Tunnels should be built for the next hundred years at least, not for the vehicle of today.

    6. Re:Longest tunnel? by RhettLivingston · · Score: 1

      At 700 mph an upward change in gradient with a radius of 100 km produces 1G of downward acceleration. That added to the earth's gravity gives you 2Gs. Your passengers are not going to be happy with that kind of force.

      Imagine if you tried to actually follow the real terrain, even of a typical interstate. You'd have puddles, not passengers.

      Here is a calculator to play with ... https://rechneronline.de/g-acc...

    7. Re:Longest tunnel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because acquiring the land for your above-ground system is far harder and more expensive than acquiring the land below ground.

      You've obviously never dealt with the mole-people.

    8. Re:Longest tunnel? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      It depends. As I said the preferred route for above ground hyperloop is running alongside highways. The pylons then are constructed on land owned by a transport authority, who will in pretty much all cases be glad of the reduction in cars on the highway, and happy to be paid. Permission is easy.

      And in all cases you heen to balance the ease of getting permission with the cost of construction. A hyperloop that's mostly above aground will be far cheaper to construct.

    9. Re:Longest tunnel? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Because you don't want it to feel like a rollercoaster.

    10. Re:Longest tunnel? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Check your math, you're off by about an order of magnitude. Centripetal acceleration = v^2/r, so to get 1G at 700mph (313m/s) you need r=(313m/s)^2/(10m^2/s) = ~10km, not 100. that's the difference between making routing just inconvenient and basically infeasible.

      Also, that's only relevant to the radius of curvature, not the slope itself. Make a nice gentle 20km curve and you can then plunge almost vertically, if you wanted to do so for some reason. Orbital transport cannons are the only application that springs to mind for such a thing though.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    11. Re:Longest tunnel? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      As I said the preferred route for above ground hyperloop is running alongside highways

      In general, the government only owns the land the highway is built upon. It doesn't own much to either side of the highway because that's expensive. Instead, the government uses easements to give them the right to condemn property next to the highway when they want to expand the highway. But they still have to pay the property owner when they condemn the property, making it expensive to do.

      So there generally is not enough space to a track at ground level. And even if you want to ignore the massive cost of an elevated track, there generally isn't enough space to safely put piers into the right-of-way either - you need some space to protect those piers from vehicles and protect vehicles from those piers.

    12. Re:Longest tunnel? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      You need to read the Hyperloop proposal, because what I've told is pretty much the plan for the SF to LA hyperloop. Most of it follows the interstate, much of it on pylons.

      Whilst it's an early document, and not definitive, the authors will have looked at this a bit more than you have.

    13. Re:Longest tunnel? by RhettLivingston · · Score: 1

      Thank you. The calculator I used and linked to is apparently bad. Wolfram confirmed your number of approximately 10km radius.

      Still, that makes it basically infeasible to follow terrain in any significant way. At a speed near to a km every 3 seconds, your changes in gradients will need to span many kilometers to not cause stomach lurching effects. I suppose you'd be good for the plains and many coastal areas, but something like a Chicago - Pittsburgh - New York City route would be a bit tough.

    14. Re:Longest tunnel? by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      All valid points. The median strip of I-95 is probably usable for hyperloop for most of the journey from NYC to Washington -- with a few substantial engineering problems getting across three major rivers (technically, their flooded estuaries). a good sized hill in a seriously urban area on the West bank of the Hudson, etc, etc, etc.

      None the less, I doubt it'll happen. Probably not enough people want to get from Washington to NYC in minutes to pay for the infrastructure to do so. ... And surely HSR on the existing rights of way would be much cheaper and not all that much slower.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    15. Re:Longest tunnel? by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      That's correct, but the North American coastal plain South of New York City is pretty flat all the way to Miami. The single exception that comes to mind are the New Jersey Palisades -- a precipitous 100-200 meter high Triassic lava flow on the West bank of the Hudson River. But that's very near the New York terminus and taking it at a slower speed than the rest of the trip probably would not seem out of line to passengers. .

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    16. Re:Longest tunnel? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Even those bridges over water will be easier than for a road. Two tubes is narrower and less weight than a 4 lane paved road on steel or concrete box sections. And the dynamic loading would be far more predictable too.

      I've no idea on the numbers what go between those cities, but the fact that it provides a service for the nation's top politicians will no doubt free up permissions and grants.

    17. Re:Longest tunnel? by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      The same would apply to changes of direction too. You could have a 10km radius just about as long as the vehicle was able to bank but I think it would still be pretty uncomfortable. Of course, you could slow down for the curves.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    18. Re:Longest tunnel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Musk should totally run overhead pylons along the interstates, especially Interstate 701 and right through South Pasadena.

    19. Re:Longest tunnel? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      I suspect that's another reason Musk is interested in tunnels - you can mostly ignore a lot of surface topology, and curves can be made much larger while dealing with far easier to secure right-of-ways.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    20. Re:Longest tunnel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really, the preferred route is NOT alongside highways. They aren't straight enough long enough, since they are designed for 60-90mph (in the US) rather than 200mph (for high speed rail) or 700mph (hyperloop). Running alongside, over, or under a railroad might be better, since some at least (the old Pennsylvania line now used by Amtrak) were designed mostly for 100mph or more outside of towns. But really, a hyperloop from DC to NY would need to run nearly straight, period, meaning on its own route over and under things without regard to what was there before. Yes, they will demand the right of eminent domain, because they will need to use it, and the areas it goes through will suffer for it just as areas affected by new railroad lines and highways are (or were, in earlier days). Ultimately, a choice between The Great New Thing and What's There Now will need to be made. Making that choice and giving the decision makers adequate political and legal cover is what all those "unnecessary" studies and permits are for.

    21. Re:Longest tunnel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The back-of-the-envelope scheme for the California Hyperloop looks a lot like it follows I-5, but it can't. I-5 wanders back and forth, up and down in the foothills along the west side of the San Joaquin Valley to minimize distance while also minimizing effects on the farmers. It was designed for 75-80mph, not 700. Hyperloop would need to be straighter and more level than the road unless Musk has also invented some kind of gravity distortion and compensation field to deal with the curves (vertical and horizontal). Then, when you get to the Tehachapi Mountains at the south end and the Coast Range at the north, you need to do some serious tunneling and allow for some active or potentially large-displacement faults; highways can have steep grades, so I-5 went over the mountains rather than through them. An engineering problem, not a project-killer, unless the time and expertise to do it right are too expensive. And Musks Boring machine looks like it's OK for soft alluvium but might have a few problems with solid (and occasionally shifting and full of pressurized fluids) rock in the middle of a mountain range. Just like any other tunneling machine. Oh well, reality bites, doesn't it. Live with it, and do the job right.

    22. Re:Longest tunnel? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      That's mostly the case with highways in built-up areas, not so much for highways in the countryside.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  7. Good! by Henriok · · Score: 1

    Yes, it's hard to get approval to shoot thousands of people in a tube dug underground across several legislative jurisdictions. I wonder why? What could possibly go wrong is such scenario? Could people die? Could the tunnel compromise sensitive locations? Could the tunnel disrupt plans already set in motions by the in-between communities? I think it's perfectly fair to make this difficult, and I think Musk is tenacious enough to see it through, and by junmping through the hoops make an even better product than if a more laissez faire attitude towards other people were the standard.

    --

    - Henrik

    - when the Shadows descend -
  8. Doomed? by sTERNKERN · · Score: 0

    Ffs slashdot.. enough with the clickbait

    1. Re:Doomed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Elon can just say: Give me permission , or I will build the first hyperloop in China (or Indonesia, which I thought was supposed to be the first location for the hyperloop).
      This is a little more difficult with SpaceX, since every orbital rocket is also an interbalistic rocket, so there is no way around US permission to send humans to Mars.

  9. let them have no regulations if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They agree to not have users sign away their rights... Agree to not cut corners, and provide proof of this. Musk himself uses the system multiple times.

  10. Wrong-headed government interference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I certainly wouldn't want the government to regulate the construction of a supersonic passenger vehicle that travels through the world's largest vacuum chamber, which could be subject to explosive decompression.

    If enough people die in HyperLoop, people will simply stop using it. And they will be forced to increase their safety standards or go out of business.

    This is how the free market works.

    1. Re:Wrong-headed government interference by plopez · · Score: 1

      After I die in an accident I'll make sure I never use the service again.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    2. Re:Wrong-headed government interference by sphealey · · Score: 1

      - - - - - f enough people die in HyperLoop, people will simply stop using it. And they will be forced to increase their safety standards or go out of business.- - - - -

      Nah. At that point the cold-eyed capitalist with the heart of Reardon Metal will turn to the government for lawsuit relief, subsidies and taxpayer-funded bailouts.

  11. Useless article by vadim_t · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Damn straight permits are needed. Because even the biggest Elon Musk advocate would be screaming bloody murder if they found the Hyperloop would pass right through their living room, their farm, or that really scenic lake on their property.

    The question is then what permits, and are they bullshit or not? Some permits exist for obscure reasons, some because some things involve other people's property, some for safety reasons, and some because people get pissy when heavy earth moving equipment shows up in their backyard.

    Yes, of course before cities were built and when people were just moving into America, there weren't such problems, because there wasn't a crapload of infrastructure and settled people to object. But you can't have those times back, unless you like the idea of completely unrestrained forfeiture where you can be kicked out of your home to make room for a mall, and companies building housing that's going to sink into the ground in a decade or two.

    1. Re:Useless article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There were people here when people were moving into America from Europe, it's just that they were scammed and railroaded (or whatever you would call it before railroads were invented).

    2. Re:Useless article by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      " it's just that they were scammed and railroaded (or whatever you would call it before railroads were invented)."

      Railroaded is the exact term.

      "The term "railroaded" in the sense of having something forced through, either unjustly or without proper regard for those affected, clearly has it's origins in analogy to the way early railroads were build, often running straight through private lands and geographic features. "

      https://english.stackexchange....

    3. Re:Useless article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, of course before cities were built and when people were just moving into America, there weren't such problems, because there wasn't a crapload of infrastructure and settled people to object. But you can't have those times back, unless you like the idea of completely unrestrained forfeiture where you can be kicked out of your home to make room for a mall, and companies building housing that's going to sink into the ground in a decade or two.

      Libertarian utopia!

  12. Not quite... by YuppieScum · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The problem is with the regulators, not the regulations.

    Bureaucrats - and politicians - of every stripe want their fingers in big projects, partly for the reflected kudos and partly for the perks. The "working lunches" at your expense to iron out some sort of "paperwork glitch", permit fees, consultancy fees, introduction fees, and the bigger the project, the stickier their fingers...

    I think Musk's approach of shining a BIG spotlight on the process is to try and keep these "public servants" honest. I hope it works...

    --
    This sig left unintentionally blank.
    1. Re:Not quite... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No names = no light.

    2. Re:Not quite... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Musk has learned a little bit about tunneling now, and wants no part of it. A general rule of thumb in civil engineering is that underground works cost 10x what the same thing on the surface costs. Like any other third-worlder he's trying to save face. Like a Trumpkin, he's blaming government, rather than accept responsibility for his own screw up.

    3. Re:Not quite... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only we had a president who wanted to cut the useless out of the regulators.

      Nobody would let him do it...

    4. Re:Not quite... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed! Lets not forget that the only reason Musk is even bothering with a Hyperloop instead of, you know, a high speed train? Is because the train 'Industry' is already so over regulated, with many lines being flat out owned by the government that even trying to build a train is out of the picture. Again, not because of technology, but because of regulations, often at the local level, with burdensome compliance requirements, that change when you go over a state/county border.

      I think he's hoping that tunneling under ground, in addition to the new technology, will help avoid some regulations that would have applied to a high speed train, but hopefully won't apply to a hyperloop

  13. Also Doomed For the Best Reason by DalM · · Score: 2

    Permits for ultra-major construction project like this are very important. Really, for gawd sakes. Those "permits" are to enforce measures in silly laws like the Clean Water Act. Do you want to live in a nation where anyone with money is just allowed to do whatever they want where ever they want to? Permits are dang important.

    1. Re:Also Doomed For the Best Reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We do live a nation where anyone with money can do whatever they want. They can hire enough lawyers to paper a project with permits. Government is simply collecting fees. They really don't give a shit what happens as long as they are not responsible.

    2. Re:Also Doomed For the Best Reason by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Informative

      What's sad is - there are people who think the Clean Water Act constitutes government overreach.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    3. Re:Also Doomed For the Best Reason by DalM · · Score: 1

      You don't know what you are talking about. The Army Corp of Engineers is responsible for the CWA permits. The don't care how much money you have.

    4. Re:Also Doomed For the Best Reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you want to live in a nation where anyone with money is just allowed to do whatever they want where ever they want to?

      Libertarian utopia!

    5. Re: Also Doomed For the Best Reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, people with enough money and the right connections already do what they want. Kind of a bad point to make, there.

    6. Re:Also Doomed For the Best Reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In those people's worldview, that's correct. Clean *insert resource here* is not a right; it's a privilege that should be paid for in a private market for that resource. If you want clean air, buy a sealed and filtered environment for it, or buy enough of the air basin that you can kick everybody out who might pollute YOUR air. Pack all those Poor People into tight slums with no health care and let 'em die - don't need them now that we have robots to do all their work. Not naming names - you pick your own representative.

  14. Boring company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would seem that this tweet is in regards to the Boring Company, not Hyperloop. It says "Cars, bikes & pedestrians". That is not Hyperloop.

    1. Re:Boring company by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      If anything, they seem like an even more sensible target for careful permitting. Even if this wasn't in LA, with the accompanying seismic issues, drilling around under people's foundations, buried lines and pipes, etc. is something you have to do rather carefully if you don't want to cause considerable damage, run into unexpected stuff, or both.

  15. Unimaginable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Faaaasteeer than the traaaaiiiiin!!!

    Craaaash!

  16. "premature declaration" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh CUTE summary. What's next, "shooting his load up the infallible tubes?"

  17. Not science fiction by HangingChad · · Score: 2

    That would be a true science-fiction scenario.

    And yet that's exactly what Uber has done. Anyone looking at that business model in March of 2009 would have said that their hurdles were more regulatory than technological. Uber basically bullied its way through taxi regulations, one major city at a time.

    It's a mistake to underestimate Elon Musk.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    1. Re:Not science fiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well Uber more just ignored the taxi regulations.

      Musk could try that with his tunneling I suppose, but eventually he has to connect back to ground level and at least there it may be harder.

    2. Re:Not science fiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be a true science-fiction scenario.

      And yet that's exactly what Uber has done. Anyone looking at that business model in March of 2009 would have said that their hurdles were more regulatory than technological. Uber basically bullied its way through taxi regulations, one major city at a time.

      It's a mistake to underestimate Elon Musk.

      Except Uber was basically providing another way to use cars on roads (for transporting people), all of which was existing tech and physical infrastructure. Hyperloop isn't existing tech, and requires a whole pile of physical infrastructure. The two have nothing in common, other than being new.

  18. Slashdot will tell him by Kohath · · Score: 1

    I'm sure we'll hear there are only 2 possibilities:

    1. A many layered, multi-year regulatory process that makes it prohibitively difficult to get anything done
    2. An anarchy hellscape where corpses rot in the streets and the living envy the dead

    Too bad we can't come up with a sensible regulatory scheme more like the countries in Europe. Regulators could have specific, written requirements and definite timetables. And they could be limited to 2 layers at most: State and Federal, with one board taking all the inputs and making the final decision in each case.

    But, no. How would dozens of minor bureaucrats wield power then? How would city councilmen get campaign funds? How would 50 State boards justify their paychecks? Who would protect the habitat of the endangered Morlocks or historical heritage sites of the CHUDs?

    1. Re:Slashdot will tell him by jeff4747 · · Score: 2

      Regulators could have specific, written requirements and definite timetables.

      They already do. The most frequent reason permits are denied are the applicants not complying with those timetables. "What do you mean I actually have to have the geological report before I get a permit to build the foundation?!?!"

      And they could be limited to 2 layers at most: State and Federal

      Because fuck the locals and what they want.

      Your house is really, really unimportant to your state, and barely acknowledged by the Federal government. Your ability to affect your state and Federal government is basically zero. So when someone wants to level it for their infrastructure dream, you should happily accept he loss, right?

      The reason cities and counties do the bulk of regulations like this is because those governments are actually responsive to their electorate. At higher levels, you can just say "fuck you" to a large swath of the electorate and still win.

    2. Re:Slashdot will tell him by Kohath · · Score: 1

      And they could be limited to 2 layers at most: State and Federal

      Because fuck the locals and what they want.

      Local governments are a creation of state governments. The states delegate authority to them.

      And it's not "fuck" anyone. But someone needs to give a final yes or no on a project rather than 50 different boards and groups and courts saying "no" (or "no, but it can be yes if you also build us a pony farm"). The board would take all the input and render a decision. The decision wouldn't be about what anyone "wants", it would be a consequence of the rules.

      So when someone wants to level it for their infrastructure dream, you should happily accept he loss, right?

      You know there are specific rules for that, right? The rules protect the property owner while allowing things to get built. The rules should probably do a better job of protecting the property owner, but they should be rules, not 1000 different people squaring off to flex their political muscle every time someone wants to build something.

      I don't care about the specific process, but are you really arguing against an orderly, rules-based process with a definite timeline? If so, why?

    3. Re:Slashdot will tell him by jeff4747 · · Score: 2

      And it's not "fuck" anyone. But someone needs to give a final yes or no on a project rather than 50 different boards and groups and courts saying "no"

      By elevating the decision to a level totally unresponsive to local issues, it is fuck a lot of people.

      My state was hit by a hurricane. Two counties were heavily damaged by flooding. You'd think it would be a quick, no-brainer deal to rebuild the damaged bridges and provide some funding from the state, right?

      It's been two years. Still no funding. Because only one state Senate and two state Assembly districts care. The counties don't have a lot of people so statewide offices don't care. The counties are rural and poor, so the other state senators and assemblypeople don't have any economic benefit from it. Instead, it's just a loss for their constituents to pay for it.

      This is for rebuilding after a natural disaster, one of the easiest things to build support for. You're now proposing the same people who can not get that done are the ones to decide whether or not your drinking water supply is destroyed because someone wants to dig through it. How would that work out? Well, this actually came up at the state level. Turns out the state is quite happy for the electric utility to dump toxic ash into the drinking water supply. It was only stopped when the locals sued the state. And if you want a smooth approval process, the locals having to resort to lawsuits is not the way to get it.

      You know there are specific rules for that, right? The rules protect the property owner while allowing things to get built.

      See above example about drinking water supply. Guess why the locals won the lawsuit? State decided to not follow the rules. They decided to not follow the rules because it would not hurt their re-election campaign while the large donations from the utility would help their re-election campaign.

      I don't care about the specific process, but are you really arguing against an orderly, rules-based process with a definite timeline?

      As I mentioned in my original reply, there already is an orderly rules-based process with a definite timeline. When the builder doesn't want to follow those rules or the timeline, they claim it's just some local politician "flexing their muscle" instead of not following the rules and process that were already in place.

      That story sells quite well to people not familiar with the specific instance being discussed, and so it becomes one of those things "everybody knows".

    4. Re:Slashdot will tell him by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Regulators could have specific, written requirements and definite timetables.

      This works well when the project is something we know about and have experience in. Want to build a power plant? We know more or less what effect that will have, what the risks are, etc. In that case, having specifics is a good thing. Want to build a hyperloop? Not only do we not have specific written requirements, but we don't know what they should be. We're not going to take the "everything not specifically forbidden is presumed OK" attitude, because of the consequences should things go wrong.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  19. Need better mass transit however it's done by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In the last century, a short-sighted if not outright evil power broker by the name of Robert Moses, never elected to any post, directly planned the transport system of New York city and the state around it, and vastly influenced the planning of other cities.

    One of Mr. Moses' nasty feats was to specify that all of the parkway bridges be built so low that it would be impossible to run trains under them, even though many were built with broad center islands.

    I grew up in one of the towns under his thumb. We literally had a 100-year-old railroad system that only went to one station for 3 large communities, with 100-year-old bridges, etc. No new train construction since New York's subways in the '30's and '40's, but lots of new roads for cars.

    America's cities still suffer under the dead hand of Robert Moses and people like him, who actively wiped out our railroads, never considering the problems automobiles would bring.

    Elon Musk's hyperloop is not the solution for this. The speed, confinement, and vacuum are obvious problems that make it more of a bomb than a train. But conventional high-speed rail transport is the solution.

    Most americans never spend time in Europe and learn about really good trains. Try Switzerland and you won't understand why people even want cars.

    1. Re:Need better mass transit however it's done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cities built to Robert Moses ideals are prospering.

      Cities that don't caitier to cars are dying.

    2. Re:Need better mass transit however it's done by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Trains solve the problem. They are proven, with known risks and costs. They can be slow or pretty fast. They can be for passengers or freight. Safety systems are very advanced now. For example, the ICE drives autonomously above 160km/h. You can buy them in just the variant you want.

      But that would not be flashy future-tech and it may involve admitting that there are some things the US does not do best. (Well, there are a lot of those things, but almost none are admitted...)

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    3. Re:Need better mass transit however it's done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, General Motors was also complicit in the shit-canning of light rail and trolly systems in cities across the country.

      Other factors include the community planning ideas of Frank Llyod Wright, which promoted the idea of a personal half-acre and created sub-urbia with its lack of density that would support public transit systems

      That lack of urban density is what makes rail undesirable for more of the country. If people are going to take two days to get somewhere, they would rather drive, if they are in a hurry, then they will fly. There would need to be another factor like a huge increase in gasoline cost for people to want to give up their cars. Right now there is little inclination in American politics or planning to look ahead for a project that large.

      Hyperloop is attempting to give travel times similar or better than flying. Being able to link enough high-density hubs would be be critical to this plan.

    4. Re:Need better mass transit however it's done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, that must explain why downtown Portland is doing so poorly...

    5. Re:Need better mass transit however it's done by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      I did a bit of research about this a while back and one common factor in the countries listed for successful mass transit was *much* higher population density than the U.S. Usually double our population density and going up from there.

      It's obvious if you think about it. If a bus route has 20 riders per mile, it may be successful. If it has 5 riders per mile, it will probably fail.

      There are cities and counties where population density is high enough but many are not (yet).

      If a bus came along every 15 minutes within 3 blocks of my house, I'd probably use it some. But it's 99 degrees with 80% humidity outside right now. And the bus only comes along once every 48 minutes. It is within 3 blocks of my house tho. But isn't that close for the other 16 blocks of the neighborhood past me.

      Bike mounts on buses have been a good start tho.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    6. Re:Need better mass transit however it's done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Portland has highways cutting through the center of it like Robert Moses wanted.

    7. Re:Need better mass transit however it's done by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "Indeed. Trains solve the problem. They are proven, with known risks and costs. They can be slow or pretty fast. "

      But not _that_ fast.

    8. Re:Need better mass transit however it's done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct, but you miss the point of what Musk is up-to I think.

      He's not trying to up-end local transit systems, he's going after the airline industry. If he manages to pull it off imagine this people will gladly forgo the "airport experience" for the "hyperloop experience" - assuming its much like rail now, you wont have the security paranoia, tiny seats, and hours of waiting around.

    9. Re:Need better mass transit however it's done by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Actually, trains solve EITHER the problem of moving freight or the problem of moving people. There is a reason why we do not have much in the way of passenger trains in the U.S.. That reason is that we have optimized our railroad system for freight. In Europe, they have very little (relative to the U.S.) freight which moves by rail. That is because the European rail system was optimized for passengers. Part of the reason for this difference is that most of Europe is less than a day's truck travel from a port, whereas the amount of the U.S. which is that close to a port is much less.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    10. Re:Need better mass transit however it's done by gweihir · · Score: 2

      Actually, trains solve EITHER the problem of moving freight or the problem of moving people.

      You clearly do not understand how a modern railway network is constructed. Or alternatively, the Europeans must have magic, because they use it for both at the same time. Clearly the darkest of witchcraft is at work here.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    11. Re:Need better mass transit however it's done by Teun · · Score: 1

      Yes trains are a great mode of mass transport.

      In The Netherlands we have one of the densest rail networks in the world yet it becomes ever more difficult to fit in new lines.
      That's why the Dutch are not just watching what Elon Musk is doing but we actually contribute to the development of the Hyperloop, by going below ground it would solve many of our space problems.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    12. Re:Need better mass transit however it's done by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Considering that European Union railroads transport approximately 1/8th the amount of freight that U.S. railroads do, I don't think you understand how modern railroad networks are constructed.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    13. Re:Need better mass transit however it's done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are fast enough to be competitive with air travel for medium distance travel (the kind where the choices are a full day road trip, a 3 hour train ride, or a 1 hour flight with all the hassles of getting to and from airports on the outskirts of the city, checking in on time and getting through security). New York-Chicago is probably around the limit of what makes sense for high-speed rail. Up the West and East coasts makes the most sense.

    14. Re:Need better mass transit however it's done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The GP has a point. In most of Europe and Asia, the freight and passenger lines are separate. The main problem with passenger rail in the US is the lack of separated rails, so the passenger trains end up delayed by slower freight traffic which isn't so concerned with keeping to a schedule.

    15. Re:Need better mass transit however it's done by Jodka · · Score: 1

      Bruce Perens wrote:

      ...a short-sighted if not outright evil power broker by the name of Robert Moses...

      Funny how you substituted "power broker" for "government bureaucrat." From wikipedia:

      Robert Moses simultaneously held twelve titles...but was never elected to any public office... Nevertheless, he created and led numerous public authorities that gave him autonomy from the general public and elected officials. Through these authorities, he controlled millions of dollars in income from his projects, such as tolls, and he could issue bonds to borrow vast sums for new ventures with little or no input from legislative bodies, allowing him to circumvent the power of the purse as it normally functioned in the United States, and the process of public comment on major public works. As a result of Moses' work, New York has the United States' greatest proportion of public benefit corporations, which are the prime mode of infrastructure building and maintenance in New York and account for most of the state's debt.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une signature.
    16. Re:Need better mass transit however it's done by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      There's a book about him with the title "The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York". It's persuasive that he was more than just a bureaucrat.

    17. Re:Need better mass transit however it's done by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      If you look at California's highways during commute time, there's no question that there is enough density to support railroads. A lot of people who can, drive to their local station. Most of us do not have any usable railroad across their commute. For example, the BART system hasn't yet reached San Jose.

    18. Re:Need better mass transit however it's done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really. The 405 and I5 go around downtown (I5 is on the other side of a river) and the old downtown neighborhoods are supported by light rail and bus

      nice try, ever heard of google maps?

    19. Re:Need better mass transit however it's done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For a recent trip to Germany, because I don't live near an airport that goes where I needed to go, I discovered that going by train took no longer.

    20. Re:Need better mass transit however it's done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. Trains are known to cap out at roughly half the speed of sound, which is why most people travel by Concorde rather than by rail.

    21. Re:Need better mass transit however it's done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typical government bureaucrats hold one job/title. The fact that Robert Moses held twelve simultaneously shows that he wasn't a simple government bureaucrat, but wielded significantly more power.

    22. Re:Need better mass transit however it's done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 405 cuts right through the middle of the city. Do you understand how to read a map you fucking dumbass moron.

    23. Re:Need better mass transit however it's done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Witchcraft? Hardly. The statement is correct. Any rail system (including Hyperloop in the generic "rail" category) is optimized for a certain type of traffic. US intercity railroads were designed and built for hauling freight, with only a few exceptions. They are low-speed (less than 80mph, usually much less), long-train, heavy-tonnage freight haulers whose task is to move heavy loads as cheaply as possible; passenger trains have to fit into that, so they can't run a lot faster without requiring excessive track space for safety reasons. European railroads are optimized for hauling people, not goods, frequently and at moderate to high speeds, so freight haulers have to be short and quick, and freight is therefore costly to haul compared to the US situation.

      Hyperloop is almost ideal from an operating standpoint: small trains, almost all run at the same speed and have the same acceleration/braking characteristics. But because they are supposed to be so fast, the jury's out regarding how far apart they will have to be for safety (emergency stopping) reasons. Because of the small trains, it's already questionable whether they will have the raw people-hauling capacity of a modern HSR line at around 200-250mph. Spread them out too much for safety, and capacity drops further; run them closer and risk unavoidable crashes when something happens.

    24. Re:Need better mass transit however it's done by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      It's not so much that the freight trains aren't as concerned with a schedule, as that the financial loss for delaying an Amtrak train is very frequently much less than the financial loss for delaying a freight train. If we want good passenger service, we need to either provide separated track or charge a lot more for train travel so it's worth delaying the grain train for the passenger train.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    25. Re:Need better mass transit however it's done by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      LA county had about 1200 people per square mile in 2015 so that should be enough. I'm not sure bout how the people are distributed.

      "Los Angeles County, officially the County of Los Angeles, is the most populous county in the United States. Its population is larger than that of 42 individual U.S. states. Wikipedia
      Area: 4,751 miÂ
      Population: 10.17 million (2015)"

      However.. Tokyo has 4600 per square mile. So almost 4x the population to pay for and use mass transit.

      La is 17th in terms of population density tho. That should be enough.

      1 Japan Tokyo-Yokohama 37,126,000 3,300 11,300 8,547 4,300
      2 Indonesia Jakarta 26,063,000 1,075 24,200 2,784 9,400
      3 South Korea Seoul-Incheon 22,547,000 835 27,000 2,163 10,400
      4 India Delhi, DL-HR-UP 22,242,000 750 29,700 1,943 11,500
      5 Philippines Manila 21,951,000 550 39,900 1,425 15,400
      6 China Shanghai, SHG 20,860,000 1,350 15,500 3,497 6,000
      7 United States New York, NY-NJ-CT 20,464,000 4,495 4,600 11,642 1,800
      8 Brazil Sao Paulo 20,186,000 1,225 16,500 3,173 6,400
      9 Mexico Mexico City 19,463,000 790 24,600 2,046 9,500
      10 Egypt Cairo 17,816,000 660 27,000 1,709 10,400
      11 China Beijing, BJ 17,311,000 1,350 12,800 3,497 5,000
      12 Japan Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto 17,011,000 1,240 13,700 3,212 5,300
      13 India Mumbai, MAH 16,910,000 211 80,100 546 30,900
      14 China Guangzhou-Foshan, GD 16,827,000 1,225 13,700 3,173 5,300
      15 Russia Moscow 15,512,000 1,700 9,100 4,403 3,500
      16 Bangladesh Dhaka 15,414,000 134 115,000 347 44,400
      17 United States Los Angeles, CA 14,900,000 2,432 6,100 6,299 2,400
      18 India Kolkota, WB 14,374,000 465 30,900 1,204 11,900
      19 Pakistan Karachi 14,198,000 300 47,300 777 18,300
      20 Argentina Buenos Aires 13,639,000 1,020 13,400 2,642 5,200
      21 Turkey Istanbul 13,576,000 540 25,100 1,399 9,700
      22 Brazil Rio de Janeiro 12,043,000 780 15,400 2,020 6,000
      23 China Shenzhen, GD 11,885,000 675 17,600 1,748 6,800
      24 Nigeria Lagos 11,547,000 350 33,000 907 12,700
      25 France Paris 10,755,000 1,098 9,800 2,844 3,800

      Why do you think mass transit hasn't been successfully implemented? Are land values too high now?

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  20. Transrapid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While Hyperloop also faces some formidable technological challenges, the article is right that regulations and bureaucracy are a far bigger problem. Politics and bureaucracy where the main reason that the Transrapid maglev in Germany never materialized. The technology was ready in the 90s, but any projects in Germany besides the test track where killed by the political circus that is attracted by such projects and ultimately killed by regulatory and bureaucratic hurdles. They used cost overruns as an excuse, but any rail infrastructure project in Germany inevitably runs over budget. Meanwhile the one they built in Shanghai appears to be working fine but the technology is now outdated.

    1. Re:Transrapid by gweihir · · Score: 1

      And that is just completely wrong. Although the fans of the Transrapid like to revise (i.e. fake) history. Shanghai has some unique conditions that make it feasible there, including that they were willing to spend a lot more money on it than it is worth.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re:Transrapid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what doomed the Transrapid? What wasn't viable compared to "high speed" rail, and mind you in germany high speed rail is barely high speed with average speeds of 150 km/h on most connections.

      Imho politicians in germany and Deutsche Bahn regularly spent a lot more on infrastructure projects than they are worth (see the new Berlin Airport, Stuttgart 21, etc.). If the political will is there this is somehow never an issue.

    3. Re:Transrapid by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "So what doomed the Transrapid?"

      It was twice as slow as the Hyperloop and needed much more energy and expensive infrastructure.

    4. Re:Transrapid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The benchmark for the Transrapid 10-20 years ago clearly was not Hyperloop but conventional rail.

      In comparison to conventional rail systems introduced around the year 2000 the Transrapid does not look bad at all:

      Track cost per km in Shanghai (44 million USD) and in the cost estimates for Munich (between 24 million EUR and 52 million EUR) were about the same as for conventional high speed rail projects in Germany (33 million EUR to 53 million EUR) constructed in the last 10 to 20 years. For the same number of passengers (Transrapid: 450, ICE3: 460) and at a speed of 300km/h the power consumption of the Transrapid (34 Wh per km) is lower than that of a conventional ICE 3 (46 Wh per km) at 200 km/h it is about the same.

    5. Re:Transrapid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the same number of passengers (Transrapid: 450, ICE3: 460) and at a speed of 300km/h the power consumption of the Transrapid (34 Wh per km) is lower than that of a conventional ICE 3 (46 Wh per km) at 200 km/h it is about the same.

      Sorry that should have been Wh per person and km.

  21. We need a monorail! by plopez · · Score: 1
    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  22. "Bureaucratic challenges" = oversight by sphealey · · Score: 1

    - - - - - The eye-rolling comes less from the technical challenges than from the bureaucratic ones. - - - - -

    John Galt forbid that human beings should have any say in what happens in their physical, environmental, or economic environment through the entity they have created to provide such oversight, their government. Next you'll be telling me that Uber should be held responsible for flat-out breaking the law.

    By the way, how's that self-driving car thing coming? Been tested on a snowpacked street in Boston with children playing on snowbanks yet?

  23. Essential reading by JBMcB · · Score: 1

    https://www.amazon.com/Enginee...

    Applicable in this case, I think.

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
  24. Regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Before we had regulation we had Standard Oil, Wells Fargo, Union Pacific, and Sears. End most regulations.

  25. Even if premise is correct, the conclusion isn't by Jeremi · · Score: 1

    Say, for the sake of argument, that bureaucratic red tape makes building a Hyperloop impractical in the USA.

    The solution? Build it somewhere else first. Once it has been up and running for a few years in, say, China, it would be more of a known entity and therefore easier to convince people to support it in the USA. (Or perhaps it would crash and burn in China for whatever reason, in which case we'd know that not allowing it in the USA was in fact the right thing to do)

    --


    I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  26. Smells like begging for more funds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    oooh i see, despite the numerous TECHNICAL difficulties some "followers" (let's call the media in pay roll that way) want us to see it like it's really a problem with the filthy governments.
    Assuming that hyperloop will make a proper testing tube with ALL the characteristics (e.g speed) that they wish to promote their product apparently it will have to pass some basic tests to verify that it is safe for the passengers like, let's say, shoot the tube with bullets or see what happens when masses collide with the tube (during hurricanes for example).
    For the moment it's highly doubtful if we ever see a proper test chamber. If they ever build one then let's talk about bureaucracy.

  27. Who owns the earth? The sky? by swell · · Score: 1

    In the US, when you buy a house, you don't necessarily get the mineral rights. If there's gold or diamonds or oil under your house you may not have a valid claim to it. Are we to assume that cities, counties and other entities DO have rights to the land below them? How deep do those rights go?

    As a practical matter, communities should not be concerned about activities far below them any more than activities in the air high above. Fracking being an obvious exception where it can cause earthquakes or damage the water table. OTOH if the tunnel is near building foundations, of course some caution is warranted. I haven't seen any indication of the depth of these tunnels.

    --
    ...omphaloskepsis often...
    1. Re:Who owns the earth? The sky? by Teun · · Score: 1

      In a lot of (Western) Europe the mineral rights are governed by laws from the days of Napoleon.
      Meaning most things more than a meter below ground (or your building) belongs to the the state.
      Yes it makes this sort of planning much easier.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  28. Environmental impact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The region from Rock Springs, Wyoming to Vernal,Utah was so lush with grass when the fortyniners went through that men on horse back could loose sight of each other only a few feet apart. When the transcontinental railroad went through in the 1870's, they pierced a clay lens (which held up the water table) when them made a couple of cuts to level the line, and now it is high desert with sage brush clumps 30 feet apart for 50 miles on either side of the rail line. Today that would be "not in my backyard."

    Also, I can only imagine the mayhem with another LA earthquake and hundreds of miles of underground tunnels with people riding along at supersonic speed in them. How fast can you stop to avoid a hazard? The hyperloop needs a lot of thought musk has obviously never done.

  29. Vacuum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's doomed because vacuum is finicky to maintain at ground level in the lab. At hundreds of miles long with dozens of entry and exit points, and requiring safety levels appropriate for human transit, it's a completely safe bet - against. The regulators are right.

  30. The worst reason in CA? by Mrakodrap · · Score: 1

    Earthquakes.

    1. Re:The worst reason in CA? by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "Earthquakes."

      Neither New York nor Washington nor the space between lies in California and that's what we're talking about here.

    2. Re:The worst reason in CA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    3. Re:The worst reason in CA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Earthquakes and tunnels are less incompatible than earthquakes and bridges. A tunnel hundreds of feet down is one of the safest places you can be during an earthquake with the exception being the point at which it crosses a fault line. The Ward Tunnel near Fresno is 12.8 miles long and has survived for nearly 100 years. I checked and they just experienced a 3.9 practically on top of the tunnel 29 days ago. There is regular earthquake activity in the region.

  31. Lemonade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Next on his agenda -- lemonade stand permits!

  32. Re:Corrupt bureaucracy, no matter how big or small by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "-1 Offtopic"

    Idiot fucking moderators don't speak English apparently.

    It's right there in the summary. The man said the biggest problem is bureaucracy. Well, that's a problem all over the world. The poorest countries have the biggest, most corrupt bureaucracies. That is why they are poor.

  33. The article makes what would be a valid argument by hey! · · Score: 5, Insightful

    in a world where you could put eight miles of new subway line in a major city without checking to see what's there first. But after hundreds of years of development, most without the benefit of geographic information systems, you can't be certain what kind of weird shit (or people) down there.

    The author seems shocked that it'd take ten years of planning before you could start workers digging. The reality is you need to figure out the impact on water, sewer, gas, electricity, telecom, peoples basements -- and chances are none of that stuff is all on one map; a lot of it is likely not mapped at all, or mapped incorrectly. Ten years before your break ground seems very reasonable to me.

    Likewise he's mortified that the Chesapeake Bay Tunnel project had to spend two years on geological and environmental impact studies before breaking ground. That's a twenty-three mile long complex of causeways and tunnels across the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, one of the most important fisheries in the country as well one of the world's busiest shipping routes. Two years of study! He calls this a "run-of-the-mill highway". Sure, anything seems easy if you no abso-frickin' nothing about engineering. Bridges and tunnels are the most prestigious projects for a civil engineer to work on because they're ridiculously complex. Just look at all the pieces of the thing. Two years of preliminary geological and environmental study to build the thing sounds outstanding.

    This is just Dunning-Kruger run amok. These aren't cases of preliminary studies holding back engineering. Assessing the feasibility and impact of a project is a *major part* of civil engineering. Sure, you could start digging and hope you don't rupture a gas line, breech a high pressure water main, start a plague of rats in Manhattan's Upper East Side (average annual income $180K), damage a fishery that that brings in 290 million dollars per year, or find out the soil you're tunneling through won't support the weight above it. And then you'd be forced to stop and figure out how to fix it. In fact you'd almost inevitably be forced to stop and redesign your project.

    A basic principle of engineering project management is that it's waaay cheaper to anticipate a problem than to figure out what to do about it when you're halfway done.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  34. Technical Challenges by Kunedog · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here's the vid, so everyone knows what we're talking about:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?... He's made others since, but that's the first and most comprehensive. TL:DW technical challenges:

    * The tube would be the largest vacuum chamber in the world.
    * Any maintenance whatsoever in the tube requires depressurization and shutting down the line.
    * Vacuum seals must work repeatedly and reliably for passenger loading and unloading.
    * If a vehicle dies out in the field, it's unclear how they plan to evacuate passengers from either the vehicle or the sealed, elevated steel tube.
    * The tube has to deal with steel expansion in the daytime. The total expected variance (for the 370-mile California route) is three football fields, so you need lots of expansion joints (unless your loading platforms and pylons are going to be incredibly mobile), all of which must also be vacuum sealed. Also keep in mind the sun hits only the top of the tube so the expansion won't be uniform.
    * A breach in the system is likely to be catastrophic, with a torrent of air rushing in and propelling the first vehicle it hits at great speed into the next one, since there's no air cushion between the vehicles.
    * Anyone with a rifle along the impossible-to-guard 370-mile tube can cause one of those failures by penetrating the inch-thick steel.

    If these crushing technical challenges have been addressed, please do give us a link, because so far it looks a lot like solar roadways or Onlive.

    1. Re:Technical Challenges by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "* The tube has to deal with steel expansion in the daytime. The total expected variance (for the 370-mile California route) is three football fields, so you need lots of expansion joints..."

      Thank god we invented insulation some time ago.

    2. Re:Technical Challenges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which adds to costs to an already uneconomical boondoggle.

    3. Re:Technical Challenges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Even with insulation, after a couple of hot days, the temperature of the tube will still increase.
      Not to mention, they have yet to build an oil pipeline that doesn't leak constantly.
      How are they going to do this for a giant vacuum tube?

    4. Re:Technical Challenges by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 5, Insightful

      * The tube would be the largest vacuum chamber in the world.

      And? So it would set a record. So what? On its own, that fact is meaningless.

      * Any maintenance whatsoever in the tube requires depressurization and shutting down the line.

      Overstated. Some types of maintenance would require depressurization and shutting down the line. Others would not. In particular, none of the required maintenance on the vehicles that traverse the tube requires depressurizing anything but the airlock already in hourly usage anyway. You take them out of the tube, perform maintenance, and put them back. For tube maintenance, you shut down. Consider it a snow day at an airport in the northeast, or a heat wave at an airport in Phoenix, except predictable and scheduled. No big deal. (And incidentally, completely impervious to snow.)

      * Vacuum seals must work repeatedly and reliably for passenger loading and unloading.

      Yes. And? Is this impossible? I doubt it. Does it require some engineering work? Yes. That work can be done.

      * If a vehicle dies out in the field, it's unclear how they plan to evacuate passengers from either the vehicle or the sealed, elevated steel tube.

      Unclear, but any idiot can imagine adding access ports to the tube at intervals, including removable sections large enough to allow removal of a failed vehicle. It's amazing what you can do with hydraulics.

      * The tube has to deal with steel expansion in the daytime. The total expected variance (for the 370-mile California route) is three football fields, so you need lots of expansion joints (unless your loading platforms and pylons are going to be incredibly mobile), all of which must also be vacuum sealed. Also keep in mind the sun hits only the top of the tube so the expansion won't be uniform.

      So it will have expansion joints. A two and a half foot expansion joint every mile would do it. Since it's not a very hard vacuum, designing an adequate expansion joint is entirely possible. I would build them much less than every mile and make them quite large, and double up the design as being both an expansion joint and the aforementioned rescue access. As for uniformity of expansion, steel is a very very good thermal conductor. The difference in expansion is negligible.

      * A breach in the system is likely to be catastrophic, with a torrent of air rushing in and propelling the first vehicle it hits at great speed into the next one, since there's no air cushion between the vehicles.

      Ridiculous. Railroads have had rail integrity sensing for decades now. The system requires both integrity sensors and pressure sensors along its entire length anyway. It's not like there's one giant vacuum pump at the end, with only one sensor. These are both safety and operational features. A breach in the system is a nonevent. It can be detected in a matter of seconds, and the information broadcast to all capsules in danger (a steel tube is basically a wave guide, making communication dirt simple), which can automatically engage emergency braking systems, which mainly means retracting the air skid pylons and letting the capsule drop onto its wheels. The wheel bearings will be ruined and have to be replaced, but the capsule will stop safely.

      * Anyone with a rifle along the impossible-to-guard 370-mile tube can cause one of those failures by penetrating the inch-thick steel.

      Uhm, no. Just no. Inch-thick steel is effectively armor. Very very good armor. You can legally buy armor-penetrating large caliber rifle ammunition in the United States (because 'Murica! Fuck yeah!) and while it does put a divot into inch thick steel, it does not penetrate. At all. Plenty of video on Youtube demonstrating. That lunatic in Texas tried it with all manne

    5. Re:Technical Challenges by Teun · · Score: 1

      Most if not all these technicalities have been addressed, like the expansion joints would be at the various stations where the speed would also be lower.
      Yes it is a huge vacuum chamber but for maintenance it would obviously be segmented, in case of an emergency it or parts of it could be pressurised to atmospheric in less than 30 seconds by means of the many valves placed at fairly close distances.
      Most of the required technology is used daily in for example the oil field.
      About the thermal expansion, have a look at surface pipelines like that one in Alaska, at regular intervals it has expansion loops, not useful for a hyperloop, long underground pipelines don't need such expansion loops by design.
      Oh yes, that gun is fairly useless when the loop is 20-50 meters below the surface, also, putting a few .50? holes in the worlds largest vacuum chamber is not going to cause an immediate catastrophe.

      Anyway, in case the US legal system is too high a hurdle there are going to be other countries with a more forward system to actually build a loop.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    6. Re:Technical Challenges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > If a vehicle dies out in the field, it's unclear how they plan to evacuate passengers from either the vehicle or the sealed, elevated steel tube.

      You've never actually read any of Musk's detailed proposals. This and every other point you raise -save the last one- are addressed in it.

      > Anyone with a rifle along the impossible-to-guard 370-mile tube can [problems] by ... penetrating the inch-thick steel.

      A) You'd need some serious ammo to penetrate inch-thick steel. Most hunters don't use that sort of ammo: they don't want to turn their kills into gore bags.

      B) This sort of thing is true of all of our infrastructure. Funnily enough, we simply don't see people using the commonly-available tools required to damage any of our thousands of miles of power lines, pull up any of our thousands of miles of train rails, or rupture any of our thousands of miles of water distribution lines. The same will be true for the Hyperloop.

    7. Re:Technical Challenges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that none of these issues are addressed.

    8. Re:Technical Challenges by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      .50 BMG AP will easily go through that and only costs five bucks a round...

      A good accurate rifle that fires it is under $8k. Cheaper ones exist as well.

    9. Re:Technical Challenges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > .50 BMG AP will easily go through that and only costs five bucks a round

      And what US-based animal hunter uses that to hunt game? None of them.

      > A good accurate rifle that fires it is under $8k.

      The tools required to cause equivalent damage to our power, transportation, and water systems are one to two orders of magnitude cheaper than this. Those systems cover a couple of orders of magnitude more area than the Hyperloop will. Funnily enough, effectively noone damages our power, transportation, or water systems, despite it being a couple of orders of magnitude cheaper to do so and far, far _more_ difficult to secure every mile of the respective systems than it would be to secure the Hyperloop.

      Why aren't these systems nearly constantly under attack? For the same reason that effectively no-one attacks our commercial people-moving systems; noone cares to. The Hyperloop will be no less safe from sabotage than our power, water, and transportation systems.

    10. Re: Technical Challenges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In large portions of San Bernardino and Kern Counties (presumably where this line will pass) , basically anything standing more than 3 feet above the desert surface is absolutely riddled with bullet holes by rednecks and meth heads with nothing better to do. These people literally jump over fences into high security military installations just to shoot at oil barrels and other garbage sitting out in the desert.

      While a single bullet may not penetrate such a tunnel, the thousands likely to accumulate at popular shooting spots may be a different story

    11. Re:Technical Challenges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are.

      I'll address one that the OP directly complained about.

      How does one get a disabled BART train out of the Transbay Tube; a 3.6 mile, fully-enclosed tube ~40 meters below the San Francisco Bay?

      I'll give you a hint: In much the same way you'd get a disabled Hyperloop car out of the Hyperloop.

      Every few miles of Hyperloop tube, there is an escape portal. Should a Hyperloop car become disabled and be unable to make it to the escape portal, a tug will be sent from the nearest point to tow the car and its occupants to the nearest portal for extraction.

      You'd follow pretty much the same procedure in the event of a BART train failure in the Transbay Tube. Hell, it'd probably be _easier_ to do this with the Hyperloop because there are fewer people to handle during the evacuation.

      You might ask: "What about sudden failure of the car? Won't the cars behind crash into the suddenly slowing car?".

      I would answer: "No, silly. BART has had reliable, fully-automated, computer-controlled trains for the past fourty-four years! The human 'piloting' the train is there in part because BART workers have a _really_ good union, and in part to provide emergency first aid in the event of an accident. For closed-loop systems, the problem of collision avoidance is _solved_."

    12. Re:Technical Challenges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .50 BMG AP will easily go through that and only costs five bucks a round...

      I wouldn't bet on that

    13. Re: Technical Challenges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a biological challenge: what happen when a leak is created by a bullet in this 1 inch steel ? The influx of air will stop the vehicle instantly. OK there could be detection systems that slow down and stop the vehicle when that happens. But there is a special timing were a hole about 1 km away cannot be detected fast enough to stop cautiously the vehicle.
      So you end up with a full wagon of intact but dead bodies because the brains of the passengers will have hit the forefront skull 1000km/h to 0 in one second !
      At least planes cannot be reached by guns. And nothing near them can be considered a wall; because yes air is a wall for the Hyperloop.
      The only solution is underground Hyperloop which increases vastly the cost of the project.

    14. Re:Technical Challenges by vtcodger · · Score: 2

      Aside from which, the NYC-Washington DC proposal is for a tunnel, not an above ground tube. Temps underground at any depth sufficient to miss sewers, data cables, water mains, old basements, etc, etc, etc are pretty stable.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    15. Re: Technical Challenges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI, here in Europa, terror attacks or attempts are daily. With a small bomb they can break this 1 inch steel. With a precise timing, even automatic given the noise an Hyperloop make, it can let air penetrates ahead of a coming vehicle which would not have been warned by its sensors. The air behaves then like a wall that does very little damage to the vehicle but kill instantly the passengers by throwing their brains against the forefront skull.
      I would prefer to ride an underground Hyperloop.

    16. Re:Technical Challenges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thermite is quite a bit cheaper than that.

    17. Re: Technical Challenges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >FYI, here in Europa, terror attacks or attempts are daily.
      you're full of shit.

    18. Re:Technical Challenges by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      I don't think anybody is claiming that the technical challenges could not be overcome, the point is more about at what cost.There's no point in having a hyper loop if it is so expensive it can't compete with aircraft.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    19. Re: Technical Challenges by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      FYI, here in Europa

      I thought I told you to attempt no landings there?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    20. Re:Technical Challenges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean captain strawman? The one that purposefully misrepresent the claims to "debunk" it. No thanks. He has some interesting stuff when it's about chemistry but when it is about anything beyond that he sounds like a buffoon.

    21. Re: Technical Challenges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > There is a biological challenge: what happen when a leak is created by a bullet in this 1 inch steel ? The influx of air will stop the vehicle instantly.

      Right. Can we see your calculations, please?

    22. Re: Technical Challenges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "full or shit" maybe you can elaborate ?

    23. Re: Technical Challenges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a biological challenge: what happen when a leak is created by a bullet in this 1 inch steel ? The influx of air will stop the vehicle instantly.

      That is not even remotely close to the truth.

      Assuming normal ambient air pressure, you'll get little more than a slow hiss into the tube. It will take hours to cause an appreciable change in pressure.

      The flow rate of air into a miles-long tube through an inch-wide hole is laughably small---if you're worried about it causing an increase in air pressure.

      On the other hand, if this is ignorant FUD from the babbling, infantile mouth of an internet troll... well, congratulations on leading a completely useless life.

    24. Re: Technical Challenges by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      You shoot the 1" thick steel with a 50 cal bullet. It's going to punch a small hole (1" dia). You now have a hissing leak in a miles long 10ft diameter tube. But, somehow, a large car is going to hit this slowly increasing area of higher pressure hard enough to go from 1000 to zero in less than a second.

      Can I have some of that weird shit your smoking? I'd like to get some studies done on how it can scramble a humans brain and yet leave them cognizant enough to type.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    25. Re:Technical Challenges by Optic7 · · Score: 1

      Uhm, no. Just no. Inch-thick steel is effectively armor. Very very good armor. You can legally buy armor-penetrating large caliber rifle ammunition in the United States (because 'Murica! Fuck yeah!) and while it does put a divot into inch thick steel, it does not penetrate. At all. Plenty of video on Youtube demonstrating. That lunatic in Texas tried it with all manner of weapons and ammunition, right up to 50 caliber.

      Uhm, I'm not knowledgeable in metalurgy or guns, but I have a pretty good hunch that actual military vehicle armor is very different from just any old steel, and most likely a lot more expensive. Just as an example, I was out with some friends many years ago and we shot through about a half-inch steel target from what I recall, with regular 30-06 rifle ammo. It left a perfectly clean hole, as if someone had taken a drill to it. I would not be so certain that whatever steel they use to build thousands of miles of large tubes would be very bulletproof at all. I think that your expectation that they would use any kind of serious armor for that size installation might be off the mark.

    26. Re: Technical Challenges by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      A friend of mine was in a sailing class. The instructor unscrewed the depth gauge and let the inch-wide hole let water into the boat, while he continued on. After a while, he showed the class the level of water in the bilge, which wasn't really impressive, replaced the gauge, and turned the bilge pump on, and the bilge was mostly dry almost immediately.

      This sounds like another one of those scale things.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    27. Re: Technical Challenges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> FYI, here in Europa
      > I thought I told you to attempt no landings there?

      No, that was Hollywood. It's full of stars.

    28. Re:Technical Challenges by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      Uhm, I'm not knowledgeable in metalurgy or guns, but I have a pretty good hunch that actual military vehicle armor is very different from just any old steel, and most likely a lot more expensive.

      It certainly is different. To be clear, I wasn't talking about reactive tank armor that can stop a sabot round fired by a T-72. I was talking about steel vs rifle rounds.

      Just as an example, I was out with some friends many years ago and we shot through about a half-inch steel target from what I recall, with regular 30-06 rifle ammo. It left a perfectly clean hole, as if someone had taken a drill to it. I would not be so certain that whatever steel they use to build thousands of miles of large tubes would be very bulletproof at all.

      I suspect your memory was faulty, or it wasn't steel. I invite you to watch the linked video. While you are correct that there are many grades of steel, we're talking about a tube suspended on pylons dozens of feet apart, capable of withstanding the transient loads of a many ton capsule passing through it at hundreds of miles per hour, in earthquake country. Nobody is suggesting they use the cheap stuff.

      In the case of the northeast corridor, all of that is out the window anyway. It's fairly clear that a Hyperloop in the American northeast would have to be underground, where idiots with rifles and too much time on their hands aren't a factor. Also thermal expansion would be far less of a factor, if not obviated completely. Getting people out in the case of capsule failure would be harder, though I bet capsules can be designed well enough and inspected well enough at each end that the chances of capsule failure drop to even less than the chances of a plane crash per passenger mile. Even when a capsule does fail, only air skid failure would really be a problem for passengers. The capsule would grid to a halt and the passengers would be stuck waiting for the little electric tractor to come fetch them and tow them to an access point or an end point. Inconvenient but eminently survivable. I predict if a Hyperloop ever got built, it would be safer than any other form of vehicular transportation, ever.

  35. Not the Spin They're Looking For by Kunedog · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But don't worry. Der Trumpenfuhrer will fix all that. He has vowed to eliminate all those terrible regulations. And when Elon Musk's hyperlloop damages your property, you''l just have to suck it up and stop being such a cry-baby liberal.

    TFS:

    SpaceX and its commercial-spaceflight competitors can experiment because Congress and President Barack Obama agreed to protect them from Federal Aviation Administration standards.

    If anything, when the overhyped and unworkable Hyperloop goes nowhere (based on its own merits), this sounds like a pretense to spin the failure as "Thanks Trump."

    1. Re:Not the Spin They're Looking For by haruchai · · Score: 1

      SpaceX and its commercial-spaceflight competitors can experiment because Congress and President Barack Obama agreed to protect them from Federal Aviation Administration standards.

      If anything, when the overhyped and unworkable Hyperloop goes nowhere (based on its own merits), this sounds like a pretense to spin the failure as "Thanks Trump."

      If anything Trump will either be gone by then or so marginalized as to be irrelevant.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  36. We need a Silicon Valley of administration by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 0

    When I first learned to drive I had to deal with the California DMV. Every routine operation involved hours of sitting around, punctuated by invigorating moments of finding myself in the wrong line. Today I deal with the Arizona "Motor Vehicle Department" as it's called. Every operation except for tests and pictures can be handled online in minutes, and this is for an operation whose costs in inflation-adjusted dollars are a small fraction of the California budget.

    Imagine if we took a Silicon Valley approach to automating government operations everywhere: putting offices online, replacing hoary signature cycles with digital equivalents to minimize the need for office visits, using Skype for interviews, applying narrow AI in places where it will work best. Let teams of competing entrepreneurs study each office and suggest improvements.

    Let's make getting a building permit as easy as getting welfare.

  37. Long distance commute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If people will be able to commute into and out of Silicon Valley in an hour while living literally in the middle of nowhere (because of cheap living costs) there should be some interesting opposition: people would want it in their back yard, while landlords in the big cities would protest that business is taken away from them. That is until the sprawl fills up and we're back to square one, but until that happens it would allow people to breathe for a few decades.

  38. It should be that way. by tempest69 · · Score: 1

    We should be taking real care in how this thing effects people. Affecting this much change is a damn big deal, and I think that we should be doing this because we need to be comfortable with upgrading our infrastructure. And if we consistently say no to changes, we don't move forward.
    Sure this will piss people off, but we should have a reasonable ability to reshape the future.

  39. Other than the everything else... by shellster_dude · · Score: 1

    Sure, government regulation is a huge problem, but I think we should all acknowledge all the other impossible hurdles to a practicle Hyperloop first:

    1) During normal temperature variance, the inaugural, proposed route will experience over three football fields worth of expansion and contraction. Your supports have to deal with this. The only real solution is flex couplings, but we don't know how to build flex couplings that can also maintain the kind of vacuum that is required for the Hyperloop to be anything but an insanely expensive monorail.

    2) In the event of failure, there's no good way to evacuate people. Decompression of a car, even if controlled will kill the passengers because even compressed pure oxygen can't provide enough oxygen to them to survive in the vacuum conditions.

    3) A simply pipe bomb, detonated anywhere along the line, will cause explosive decompression of the entire tube, killing anyone in the tube, and immediately scrapping the entire route.

    4) Even with conservative projections, and assuming the above problems magically go away, the cost of building the Hyperloop based on the technologies that we can forecast, the cost is astronomical (see the light rail fiasco in California already).

    5) While cool, and faster, the Monorail has limited capacity, limited flexibility (it can't carry much or large cargo), so it is less useful than existing forms of transportation that are already "fast enough" in most cases. This means it is of limited use, which massively effects the viability of such an expensive project.

    But, yeah, other than the EVERYTHING else, the Hyperloop is probably doomed by government regulation.

    1. Re:Other than the everything else... by Teun · · Score: 1

      Sure, government regulation is a huge problem, but I think we should all acknowledge all the other impossible hurdles to a practicle Hyperloop first:

      1) During normal temperature variance, the inaugural, proposed route will experience over three football fields worth of expansion and contraction. Your supports have to deal with this. The only real solution is flex couplings, but we don't know how to build flex couplings that can also maintain the kind of vacuum that is required for the Hyperloop to be anything but an insanely expensive monorail.

      No, such connections are well understood and feasible, in the oil industry they are called slip joints.
      Also, an underground tube does not suffer the same expansion issues, have a look at the world's great tunnels.

      2) In the event of failure, there's no good way to evacuate people. Decompression of a car, even if controlled will kill the passengers because even compressed pure oxygen can't provide enough oxygen to them to survive in the vacuum conditions.

      Crap, the relevant segment of the tunnel can be pressurised in seconds, enough time to save the passengers.
      By the way, do you know a plane at 30,000 ft. needs pressurisation?

      3) A simply pipe bomb, detonated anywhere along the line, will cause explosive decompression of the entire tube, killing anyone in the tube, and immediately scrapping the entire route.

      What a load of baloney, why would the entire tube decompress? The damn thing IS already decompressed :)
      Also, the tube is not made of paper, it'll be steel and lots of concrete. Also because of segmentation only part of it will pressurise.

      4) Even with conservative projections, and assuming the above problems magically go away, the cost of building the Hyperloop based on the technologies that we can forecast, the cost is astronomical (see the light rail fiasco in California already).

      You've really not looked into this right?
      The Hyperloop tube is much smaller than a conventional tunnel and thus much easier to bore, also, over the past 10 or so years there has been a lot learned from those large tunnelling projects.

      5) While cool, and faster, the Monorail has limited capacity, limited flexibility (it can't carry much or large cargo), so it is less useful than existing forms of transportation that are already "fast enough" in most cases. This means it is of limited use, which massively effects the viability of such an expensive project.

      Yes it is of relatively small diameter but it is plenty big enough for things that require fast transport, think of people.
      And who says it is to replace conventional means of transport like ships?

      But, yeah, other than the EVERYTHING else, the Hyperloop is probably doomed by government regulation.

      Indeed, when regulation is done by idiots like you that don't have a clue yet spout off an opinion.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    2. Re:Other than the everything else... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What happens with seismic activity? Building airtight tunnels anywhere near the San Andreas fault just seems like a movie turning into real life disaster. Seismic activity is more often than not sourced deep underground. And not to forget to mention: The next Big One Earthquake proofing a rigid structure (even with normal heat expansion built-in) is not easy nor cheap.

    3. Re:Other than the everything else... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Engineer: "OMG guys, we forgot about earthquakes! Some AC on /. just pointed that out. OMG what'll we do what'll we do??"

  40. God forbid that fucking idiots run the oversight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You haven't done anything on your own before or you'd know that not everything needs a manager to manage the management.

  41. Re:The article makes what would be a valid argumen by RhettLivingston · · Score: 1

    The vast majority of the problems are solved simply by going deep. They would be silly to plan these new systems less than 500 ft down. That is why they are planning for the vehicles to enter the system via shafts.

  42. Hyperloop was proposed to avoid regulations by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

    When Musk originally proposed the hyperloop as an alternative to California's not-really-high speed rail, one of his arguments was that it'd be much cheaper and easier to get permission for. HSR is unable to wrangle permission to build anywhere but empty bits of the central valley because it needs to acquire so much land and rights of way. The hyperloop, he argued, could simply follow the freeways and be built above the center divider. What happened to that notion?

    --
    This space intentionally left blank
  43. I still want to know... by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

    I still want to know how the system will handle a situation where the pod is trapped in the tube? And all of this seems very vulnerable to terrorist attack with miles and miles of expensive-and-fragile-yet-difficult-to-monitor tubing.

    Honestly I'd bet more on self-driving vehicles than I would HyperLoop. Other than cargo there aren't a lot of people who regularly do intercity traffic.

    --
    In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
  44. Regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone welcome more and more regulation until it grt it the way your pet project.

  45. Best Reason by sexconker · · Score: 1

    That's the best reason. Fuck your useless pet project. There are rules, regulations, and property owners that take precedence over some jerkoff building a jumbo pneumatic tube system.

  46. Long Disproven by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

    The entire concept has long been disproven.
    First off, a vacuum tunnel miles long is impossible. Vacuum chambers cannot have flexible seals that are moving around, expanding and contracting, which is what anything over a few hundred feet has to do.
    Secondly, sucking all the air out of the tunnel, and the powering it with a propeller makes no sense at all.
    And most damning, the fail state is everyone gets vaporized and a large section of the city probably gets exploded as well. Their is just far too much potential energy in a vacuum of that size.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  47. Are you happy? by holophrastic · · Score: 1

    You know, there seem to be a lot of people trying their darndest to make things better, to improve the world, and to improve everything around us.

    Am I the only one who's already happy?

    I live in a Canadian metropolitan suburb. I've got a house. I'm safe. There's food. There's electricity. There's healthcare. What do I have to complain about?

    Look at things thusly: until 100 years ago, there wasn't a man alive in all of history who had things better than I have things right now. Even the wealthiest king in the wealthiest land in the biggest castle didn't have big-screen tvisions, a telephone, the ability to vacation around the world by plane. And that castle of his? Hark, drafty, dang, dusty, quiet. I've got a Swiffer. I've got music in every room. I've got self-cleaning ovens. I've got a gas fireplace, two barbecues, a gas furnace, a superb air conditioner, farm-fresh food, and a fridge -- not to mention a sports car.

    And, oh yeah, I've got furniture that's actually called a lazy-boy.

    In all truth, I've zero interest in making things any "better". Sure, instantaneous transport would make vacationing a tad-bit easier, but this hyper loop is meant to make people work more. I work enough already, thank you very much.

    I'm happy that he's having trouble getting large populations to make large changes.

    I don't really want any changes.

    I'm actually happy.

    Am I the only one?

    1. Re:Are you happy? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      This doesn't mean that every idea for progress will be reasonably safe. Most of what Musk has done has only limited downsides. If his rockets explode, he's out of business. If his cars are crap (and they aren't), there will be some more crap cars on the roads for a while. Other automakers have produced and sold crap cars. If his solar panels or batteries are bad, it's just another business failure.

      If a long vacuum chamber under a city has issues, what happens? I don't know, and I don't think you know. We need to figure those sorts of things out first.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  48. Umm.... not so much.... by King_TJ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Since when does Elon Musk strike you as a crazy man who cares about profits above all else, and wants to sacrifice anything having to do with safety to better his bottom line?

    The slow, careful roll-out of the self-driving mode in the Tesla should make it pretty clear that's not how this guy operates. He was working on all of that BEFORE government could get around to regulating it -- and he still managed to do a pretty responsible job of deploying the tech.

    The thing all of the liberals seem to ignore, with the "Government needs to protect us all from our own foolishness!" mantra is that government itself is just made up of more people like the rest of us. Many of them with the most power and say-so are individuals who rose up the ranks inside government because they wanted only to better themselves at the expense of anyone else in their way. There's no reason to trust them with our safety any more than trusting anyone else with it!

    What businesses have in their favor as motivation to do things safely is this: It's TERRIBLE for profits and the bottom line if you keep killing off your best customers.

    Government agencies and regulators, by contrast, can often just say "Oops.... we screwed up. We take back our earlier promise that X was safe." They usually get to keep their jobs afterwards and families of those who died have little recourse.

    Right now, I live out here in Maryland watching the whole project to add another line to the DC metro system. It's a huge undertaking that's costing taxpayers millions of dollars, just for a system that will cost users quite a bit just to ride on it afterwards as it loses money annually, as it always has. Entire blocks of successful businesses had to be shut down and moved to new locations for it, among other things. And ultimately, what do we get for it? A way to travel another 16.2 miles, total, if you happen to have a need to travel between a handful of designated stations in Prince George's County and Bethesda where it will terminate.

    I can't help but think I'd be much MORE excited to see effort in digging tunnels and installing new infrastructure for something like the HyperLoop -- that promises to get people between much more distant points at far greater speed than was possible previously. The rail system in America feels woefully outdated, just like our land line copper wire phone system does today. What was once a great achievement has just stagnated since then.

    Government doesn't make me feel safer at all, most of the time. Chipotle restaurant chains out here keep getting dozens of people sick and government hasn't done a damn thing to fix that yet. Meanwhile, they DO hurt small business owners like my neighbor who was trying to run his own BBQ business on weekends, serving food in front of microbreweries and at town events, etc. They pulled his permit because somebody called in to complain they saw him bringing in some food that was prepared off-site (back at his house in the kitchen), instead of preparing all of it right where he was selling it. I get why they have that rule, but practically-speaking? It was just needless harassment. The guy ran out of something and his wife was able to fix up some more for him back in the house, so he wouldn't disappoint customers who wanted it. If I trust his food enough to eat it at some event, I trust it just as much if he had to drive a mile or two back home to get it from there first.

    1. Re:Umm.... not so much.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Government doesn't make me feel safer at all, most of the time. Chipotle restaurant chains out here keep getting dozens of people sick and government hasn't d
      sounds like your problem is NOT: too much gov.

    2. Re: Umm.... not so much.... by oldestgeek · · Score: 1

      and the only self driving fatality has been a Tesla that couldn't detect a semi-trailer sitting still!

    3. Re: Umm.... not so much.... by Loki_1929 · · Score: 1

      *a stationary object camouflaged with its backdrop.

      The semi-trailer sitting still was a colored in such a way as to effectively mask it from view due its matching up against the sky behind it. Based on the available data, it's likely the total number of traffic fatalities that day worldwide were slightly reduced because of the Tesla self-drive. You only hear wall-to-wall news coverage of the failure, but the Internet contains vast examples (many with video documentation) demonstrating the Tesla self-drive feature avoiding a serious and potentially fatal accident.

      If your point is that the Tesla self-drive feature is imperfect, it's absurd up against the point that human beings are terrible drivers due in part to their near complete lack of accurate risk assessment. Combined with the fact that our higher reasoning centers cease functioning under high-stress situations and you have all the makings of disaster. Humans are terrible drivers and tens of thousands die every year in the US because of it. Driving is one of the most dangerous activities any human in the western world does on purpose.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    4. Re:Umm.... not so much.... by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

      This kind of common sense thinking has no place on slashdot. You have to repeat sock puppet talking points, call people names, and if there's even the slightest hint you're not a West Coast granola eating tree hugging communist, er, progressive, you'll be flamed out of existence.

      --
      Murphy was an optimist
    5. Re:Umm.... not so much.... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The thing all of the liberals seem to ignore....

      The thing all of the conservatives seem to ignore is that overgeneralization is stupid and suppresses intelligent argument.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  49. Counterpoint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe drilling tunnels for human transport under earthquake prone LA are just a bad idea.

  50. Who is "usk"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... and what has he done with Elon?!?

  51. Democracy is dead. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no way he could possibly build this. There are too many wheels , regs, and lawyers involved who want nothing more than to cock block any innovation. Airplanes, cars, railroads, roads, coat hangers, plastic bags, and dildos could never have become a reality in today's overregulated USA. We need to end democracy today. Let's elect Trump emperor pro temp, and have him nationalize the entire eastern seaboard. We can hang the liberal east coast politicians for treason and build this hyperlink in record time. Better to have one honest dictorship than a faux dictatorship through a thousand individual petty dictators all curtailing your freedom in the name of helping you out

    When Teddy Roosevelt wanted a canal, he wasn't held up with the law. He just overthrew a country and got the shit done, and the world benefited. Democracy isn't always good. Neither is communism, or dictatorship always bad. Each political system has its day, but as time goes on shit just gets all clogged up and nothing ever gets done. It is time for a change. The USA, once a beacon on hope and progress, is now a joke.

    Democracy is fucked. Maybe in 2000 years hence the land that used to be the USA will be ready for democracy again. AS it is the citizens are not grown up enough to self govern. They need to be lead with a firm hand. Don't blame me, blame yourself for being a bunch of Jack asses incapable of self rule.

    The choice is to elect Trump the stony dictator the nation needs, or give up self rule and allow central North America be ruled by some of the strong leaders from parts of the world that haven't been emasculated. E.g Mexico, China, or Russia.

  52. Nice try Ajit by enrique556 · · Score: 1

    The obstacles facing a run-of-the-mill highway, tunnel, or bridge are great enough. Throw in untried and unfamiliar technology and you're asking for endless delays. Those delays aren't, however, facts of the natural world. They're human artifacts. They don't have to be there.

    .. just like how the police aren't facts of the natural world, you don't need them! They just get in your way! Let's get rid of them!

    This stinks of anti- net neutrality propaganda to me. Hyperloop is a complete non-issue, in that it will never work for technical reasons. People are emotional about it though, and what better a way to sway people away from "evil" government regulation than to say that it will take their shiny new hyperloop toy away from them.

  53. Elon Musk is Captain Obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't say NO SHIT loud enough. Governments always get in the way. It's their job to do so. Who knows what other technologies would be out there now if they weren't in the way. But go on, keep voting liberal.

  54. So sad by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    We're America. We can't do things any more.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  55. even worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the NIMBY effect.

    someone may hypothesize that the magnetic fields from the linear induction motors near by will cause their pet Aardvark's hair to fall out, and just think about what it might do to human children...

    Or whatever. "it'll enable the poor to pass through their tony neighborhood bringing their crime and social malaise" (even though there isnt a stop there...)
    Or even more important, arguing (suing) over where the stations are...or aren't...

    or the 5th Amendment takings lawsuits...

  56. The real obstacle is Islam by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    ever noticed that the tallest buildings in the world are in Muslim countries, or in China. The obvious reason is that if you build one in the West the muslims will be queuing up to destroy it. Only Islamic countries, or countries which recognise and deal with the threat of Islam decisively get to have these buildings. The same will go with hyperloops. This is why it is likely that there will be one between Dubai and Abhu Dabi before anywhere in the West. And if we did have one there would have to be airline-like baggage checks and security, and it would have to be sufficiently deep to make it difficult for the muslims to dig to without being noticed.

  57. "700 miles per hour seems simple" by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

    No. It is extremely complicated (better: virtually impossible) UNDER THE INTENDED CONDITIONS (= transporting lots of people). This is precisely the biggest problem I see with these generic talking people seriously thinking that sci-fi-/CGI-video-/I-dont-know-but-here-comes-my-opinion-/just-put-more-money-there-based extrapolations of some basic ideas can solve anything: they don't get the context right (what IMHO is the worst form of ignorance: you don't know and aren't even aware about that fact).

    The last test of Hyperloop gave a good proof of the expectations of these individuals: "we reached 200 mph = 200 mph speed is done". Any sensible person with almost a basic engineering (or understood-within-its-right-context physics) background should know that the conditions under which whatever result is reached (= context) matters a lot. Something like reaching 1 km/h means nothing without the exact conditions under which such an event happened; for example, you might need a power of 1 W or 1000000 W for reaching 1 km/h on account of the given conditions! The result "it is moving at 200 mph" means pretty much nothing from the point of view of knowing where you are exactly within that development.

    In summary, the problem isn't regulations; at least, not as per the intention of that comment (i.e., unfair obstacles which ideally shouldn't be there). The problem is that these individuals aim to build what makes no sense from many different angles. Ironically, what they represent (lots of money and trendy ideas relying more on the imposition of a noisy group than on actual knowledge) is likely to find quite adaptable regulations. I am sure that the eventual construction of Hyperloop would be eminently restricted by just the most basic regulations, the ones meant to avoid the construction of death traps. I am also quite sure that all this will end (and/or be completely changed) way before reaching the that-permit-avoided-me-to-build-what-I-already-had point.

    --
    Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
  58. Route capacity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In all these conversations, it always amazes me that the topic of route capacity rarely seems to come up. Elon's optimistic estimate of 850 passengers per hour in one direction is about an order of magnitude lower than modern railway systems. That level of throughput is totally useless for intercity mass transit.

  59. This is why China, Singapore etc take the lead... by ttGuy · · Score: 1

    ...in infrastructure, they can steamroller through initiatives like this. Hence China has superfast trains, and Singapore fibre to every home, and has done for years. Same in Spain, France etc, where in comparison to the UK (our trains are awful and expensive), their trains are well designed, fast and affordable - oh, and on time! Elon needs to do all his good work in Dubai, China etc. The West is too greedy and full of special interests currently.

    --
    Pi 25 39 ForeverPi.com
  60. Baring takes time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NY to DC underground will only take a century or two.

  61. Would love to see a valid comparison by kenh · · Score: 1

    Would love to see a valid comparison between getting in a car in midtown manhattan and driving to an arbitrary destination in Washington DC, say, the White House, and starting at the same spot in midtown msnhatran, head over to the NYC hyperloop 'station', riding it into Washington, then arranging transport to the White House from the D.C. Hyperloop 'station'. Of course, hyperloop travel will likely require a TSA-like security screening, and the trains will run on a certain schedule.

    A driver in a private car can make the trip in 4 hours (230 miles approx.), will the hyperloop trip really be much quicker?

    (Co-worker that was in the federal gov't during 9/11 got to WTC from D.C. in just over two hours, but their suburban averages over 100 MPH the entire way.)

    --
    Ken
  62. Hyperloop was debunked by sproketboy · · Score: 1

    The Hyperloop was debunked a year ago and there has been no counter arguments to it (because - reality).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    1. Re:Hyperloop was debunked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > there has been no counter arguments to it

      Right or wrong, there have been counter arguments and Shane's not the only one.

  63. Recognition is due by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's well past time that Elon Musk was awarded a knighthood. 'Sir Elon' has a rather a nice ring to it.

  64. End LLCs and we won't need so many regulations by EricTDuckman1414 · · Score: 1

    If you can't run a business without immunity for the damage you do to other people and their property, maybe you shouldn't be in business?

  65. Don't worry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's doomed for lots of good reasons too.

  66. By Neruos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All you losers (if you take offense to this, then you know you're a loser) need to get 1 thing straight, advancement in Science kills people. Humans are at the very beginning of very tip of the whole "science" thing. And like a child, there will be ouchies and booboos, but on a more grand and deadlier scale.

    So with that said, people who have dreams will do whatever they can to see about that dream coming true, and history tells us that it's true. So people like Musk and others who want to try new things, only have to go find a government somewhere that will let them do whatever for a little kick back and when they do, that country is now in the history books.

    US of A, is its worst enemy.

  67. Unlicensed thermonuclear reactors on our backs by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    This so reminds me of Ghostbusters.

    Regulations exist for a reason. Originally.

    Then they get modified to preserve the property and markets that are endangered by change.

    Just like 98 percent of DOE money is used to stop cheaper solar and wind, and prop up failed fossil fuels and halt the transition of the transportation to clean energy by the DOT.

    Lead, follow, or stop progress. It's the American Way.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  68. Under the sea... by krisbrowne42 · · Score: 1

    ... because it was impossible to build it anywhere else...

    Why worry about the regulations - A Slave Obeys.

    Only the parasite wants to step in the way of innovation...

    (Because I didn't see any of the obvious and obligatory Andrew Ryan references among the comments yet)

  69. What about the economics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the economics of this project are its biggest problem. It will be fantastically expensive to build one super long tunnel like this. How many people will be able to ride in it per day? What is the cost per seat, per trip?

    Pulling some numbers out of my ass, let’s say it costs $1 trillion to build the tunnel from LA to NY (which seems on the low side, but let’s go with it for this exercise). And, let’s say it needs to be price competitive with airlines, which means roughly $500 round trip between LA and NY (so, $250 per one-way trip). Assuming a 30-year amortization and not trying to factor in the time-value-of-money, I calculate that you would need 365,297 passenger trips per day – and that doesn’t cover operating costs, debt servicing, or profit!!!!!

    Is there even that level of demand for travel between LA and NY? Even if there is, how do you move that many people using one tunnel in just 24 hours?

    You might be able to work through the technical challenges, you might be able to ram the permitting through, and you might even be able to find investors who will back it because it has Elon’s name on it. However, this project will never – in my opinion – come close to making economic sense.

  70. Huh? by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

    "Shooting passengers along at more than 700 miles per hour seems simple -- engineers pushed 200 miles-per-hour in a test this week -- "

    Clearly the author is another starry eyed idiot who thinks Physics and Engineering are just silly little problems to avoid. There is a HUGE difference between 200 and 700, it's logarithmic not linear. For those of you who suck at math this means double is not equal to twice as hard.

    --
    Murphy was an optimist
  71. Re:The article makes what would be a valid argumen by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    There's other problems involved with going 500 feet down for a long horizontal stretch. Doing something we haven't done before should take a great deal of study.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  72. Re:The article makes what would be a valid argumen by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    Oh, and if something goes wrong you have people stranded 500 feet down. There have to be good measures for quick evacuation. If, due to a disaster, I had to climb 500 feet of stairs reasonably quickly, I have no confidence that I'd reach the surface alive, and I'm not tremendously unhealthy.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  73. Re:The article makes what would be a valid argumen by RhettLivingston · · Score: 1

    So, study it. Build a single tunnel and use it for cargo or other purposes. If it works, build the parallel tunnels. In the end, it is likely cheaper and more of a sure thing than experiencing the cost increases related to spending time thinking about the problem.

    The only reason I can think of for not trying it would be if someone can think of why it might be dangerous for people on the surface. That one is hard to imagine. I've lived in areas that have much shallower mines underneath virtually every square foot of whole counties. A single tube 500 ft down is not going to effect people on the surface.

  74. Not supersonic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds requires a medium to propagate in. The tubes will be largely evacuated of their air, effectively increasing the speed of sound. No air, no sonic boom, not supersonic.

    #pedant

    1. Re:Not supersonic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is air in the tubes, equivalent to an altitude of about 200,000 feet.

      It's thin but it's not nothing.