Hyperloop

[guyser]

You can't seriously believe a tunnel under a narrow straight of water is equivalent to a 5000 mile+ transpacific crossing.

Oh plenty of people said the same thing many years ago. Some keep saying it ^....but time has this way of things previously discarded to be re-examined as tech grows.

"They're gonna put a man on the moon? No way !"

[TimG]

Oh plenty of people said the same thing many years ago. Some keep saying it ^....but time has this way of things previously discarded to be re-examined as tech grows.

And many ideas are simply forgotten about because they turned out to be too silly to bother with. Flying cars and moving sidewalks were all the rage 30-40 years ago.

[GostHacked]

Oh plenty of people said the same thing many years ago. Some keep saying it ^....but time has this way of things previously discarded to be re-examined as tech grows.

"They're gonna put a man on the moon? No way !"

If we were able to put a man on the moon over 60 years ago, then with modern tech we can surely build a new transportation system. People and freight can be moved along one of these systems. Reducing the capacity on our already overcrowded and continually crowded road systems.

During my life I have seen the double lane extension from Barry ON to Sudbury. Took a couple decades , but it is done.

[GostHacked]

And many ideas are simply forgotten about because they turned out to be too silly to bother with. Flying cars and moving sidewalks were all the rage 30-40 years ago.

Flying cars are making a come back! And we have those moving sidewalks in airports all over the world.

[guyser]

Flying cars and moving sidewalks were all the rage 30-40 years ago.

You know moving sidewalks are used today. They became quite practical for many spots.

Ever heard of ultralights?

[TimG]

You know moving sidewalks are used today. They became quite practical for many spots.

But the vision in the 70s was for moving sidewalks everywhere. That has not happened nor will it happen for the same practical reasons I use to criticize the transpacific hyperloop.

I am not saying hyperloop will not revolutionize transportation - but it will have its place in continental transport - not trans-ocean transport. Just like moving sidewalks have their place in airports but not down main street.

[guyser]

But the vision in the 70s was for moving sidewalks everywhere. That has not happened nor will it happen for the same practical reasons I use to criticize the transpacific hyperloop.

Except they are everywhere, just not many exist outside due to weather.

[TimG]

Except they are everywhere, just not many exist outside due to weather.

No they aren't. You see them in airports. That is about it. They are not practical anywhere else (whether it is because of the weather, cost or whatever).

Nothing close to this vision from the past:

http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/paleofuture/files/2012/09/moving-sidwealk.jpeg

Which is my point.

Edited August 16, 2013 by TimG

[guyser]

No they aren't. You see them in airports. That is about it. They are not practical anywhere else (whether it is because of the weather, cost or whatever).

Ok.

Only....

Metro in Paris

Hong Kong Island

Carlton, Victoria, Australia

Orlando

Baltimore

Toronto

Montreal

Manchester

Sheffield

Bristol

Stoughton Mass

Walt Disney World

National Art Gallery

Most major airports

Tower of London

Zoos

Parks

Aquariums

Urban areas

Ski resorts

Want to revisit your not practical anywhere else line?

Nothing close to this vision from the past:

http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/paleofuture/files/2012/09/moving-sidwealk.jpeg

Considering that was never a possibility due to physics and the human body.....is there a point there?

[TimG]

Only....

Yes "only". A bunch of niche applications where the cost of the sidewalk can be justified. You seem to have a hard time understanding that economics matters and gee whiz tech only gets deployed if the benefits outweigh the costs. It is not hard to imagine where the limits of any given technology are without dismissing its value in applications that make sense. Edited August 16, 2013 by TimG

[GostHacked]

Yes "only". A bunch of niche applications where the cost of the sidewalk can be justified. You seem to have a hard time understanding that economics matters and gee whiz tech only gets deployed if the benefits outweigh the costs. It is not hard to imagine where the limits of technology are.

As technology improves, you could very well get a moving sidewalk in many places that are outside. However moving sidewalks outside are not really a problem of cost, but more a logistical problem. How do you remove snow from them? So it is not practical because of that, but can be practical in other climates.

I don't think a flying car is practical as well for most. But not because of technology. Many drivers seem to have a problem with operating on a 2D field (road), I'd hate to see how they manage a 3D environment.

[guyser]

Yes "only". A bunch of niche applications where the cost of the sidewalk can be justified. You seem to have a hard time understanding that economics matters and gee whiz tech only gets deployed if the benefits outweigh the costs. It is not hard to imagine where the limits of any given technology are without dismissing its value in applications that make sense.

You seem to want to move goalposts when your blanket statements get shot to hell...like this one.

Only? Niche? Every F'ing Supercentre Loblaws builds , every Ikea Store of size. Every Airport, Amusement park, subway system in the world.

Of course Economics matter. But thats not the premise you put out...which was "No they aren't. You see them in airports. That is about it. They are not practical anywhere else "

Economics will eventually see that realization of moving sidewalks, including the cartoon one you posted, except that one too has been built , was set at 15KPH but people dont stand so well so they reduced it to 9KMH.

Once mag lev and moving sidewalks tech comes together then we will have them.

[guyser]

I don't think a flying car is practical as well for most. But not because of technology. Many drivers seem to have a problem with operating on a 2D field (road), I'd hate to see how they manage a 3D environment.

Correct.

Lots of things can and do get built, but people are inherently stupid or cant adjust to the new stuff and it is made to go away.

[TimG]

You seem to want to move goalposts when your blanket statements get shot to hell...like this one.

BS. You are completely misrepresenting the deployment of moving sidewalks because you don't want to admit I am right: the deployment of the technology is nothing close to the visions that people had back in the 70s.

Ultimately, that is my point. You want to wave your hands and mumble about how naysayers were wrong about x or y but the fact is the majority visions of future tech never materialize because they serve no practical purpose or the economics is never viable. For every tech that did succeed there are 20 that failed.

When it comes to a trans-ocean hyperloop: its not going to happen no matter what people think today because the engineering and business risks associated with building a 5000 mile long steel tube over the ocean are too large to justify given the travel options that already exist.

Edited August 17, 2013 by TimG

[Accountability Now]

I don't think a flying car is practical as well for most. But not because of technology. Many drivers seem to have a problem with operating on a 2D field (road), I'd hate to see how they manage a 3D environment.

Who needs a flying car when you can have a jet pack!! http://m.smartplanet.com/blog/bulletin/a-personal-jetpack-is-going-on-the-market-next-year/26839

These babies are going to hit the market next year but let's not talk about economics quite yet as they are starting at 150k.

Not sure if the EPA will approve these simply based on the noise pollution!!

[Bryan]

Every F'ing Supercentre Loblaws builds , every Ikea Store of size. Every Airport, Amusement park, subway system in the world.

Every?

I travel a lot. I've been to a lot of Loblaws, amusement parks, subways, and Ikeas. The only place I've ever seen a moving sidewalk is in particularly large airports. Are you talking about the escalators?

I'm not saying moving sidewalks don't exist elsewhere, but they are nowhere near as common as you're trying to make them out to be. They certainly are nowhere close to being "everywhere".

[guyser]

Every?

I travel a lot. I've been to a lot of Loblaws, amusement parks, subways, and Ikeas. The only place I've ever seen a moving sidewalk is in particularly large airports. Are you talking about the escalators?

I'm not saying moving sidewalks don't exist elsewhere, but they are nowhere near as common as you're trying to make them out to be. They certainly are nowhere close to being "everywhere".

There may well exist a Supercentre that doesnt have one, but the fact is they are out there in numbers aplenty.

Tims laughable use of the Jetsons pic has countered to show that in fact there was some built like it, but they soon realized people cant stand up moving that fast. (Went from 12 or 15KPH down to below 9K)

Practicality, affordablity, sustainablity all are factors that have to be considered.

You want to wave your hands and mumble about how naysayers were wrong about x or y but the fact is the majority visions of future tech never materialize because they serve no practical purpose or the economics is never viable. For every tech that did succeed there are 20 that failed

Somebody suggest otherwise?

Moving sidewalks work. You should try them

[Mighty AC]

Elon Musk's Hyperloop is coming via crowd funding! Outstanding! Former SpaceX director Marco Villa, and Dr. Patricia Galloway, the former president of the American Society of Civil Engineers will lead the project, born of the JumpStartFund.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/9/26/4773368/former-spacex-director-signs-on-to-crowdfunded-hyperloop-project

[dre]

Imagination is great but it is good to consider what is plausible. Even if this technology works for intercity transport it would never make any sense to build an astronomically expensive tube bridge to cross an ocean.

You have no clue whats plausible. An extremely large ammount of capital has already been expended moving people and goods back and forth across the oceans. If a technology like this reduced the cost it might be actually SAVE a lot of money. Im not claiming that IS the case... I dont know. But one of your wild guesses and 2 bucks might get you onto a city bus... nothing more.

[TimG]

An extremely large ammount of capital has already been expended moving people and goods back and forth across the oceans. If a technology like this reduced the cost it might be actually SAVE a lot of money.

Not all investments are equal risk. You can build one plane in a few months and it starts generating money. If you lose one plane due to an accident the other planes in your fleet are still producing money. Over time companies may spend trillions on planes that equal the hypothetical cost of a fixed link but the fixed link produces no revenue until it is completed which makes it a much worse investment even if the operating costs are lower. Add into that the risk of a accident or terrorist attack that turns a trillion dollar fixed link investment into nothing and you have a business case that makes no sense.

IOW - I can be fairly confident that a fixed link across an ocean is not remotely plausible.

As I said, imagination is great but it is best to focus on the plausible.

Edited September 28, 2013 by TimG

[Bonam]

Not all investments are equal risk. You can build one plane in a few months and it starts generating money. If you lose one plane due to an accident the other planes in your fleet are still producing money. Over time companies may spend trillions on planes that equal the hypothetical cost of a fixed link but the fixed link produces no revenue until it is completed which makes it a much worse investment even if the operating costs are lower. Add into that the risk of a accident or terrorist attack that turns a trillion dollar fixed link investment into nothing and you have a business case that makes no sense.

IOW - I can be fairly confident that a fixed link across an ocean is not remotely plausible.

As I said, imagination is great but it is best to focus on the plausible.

While your arguments are all very practical, the reality is that periodically transformative technologies are developed that change what is plausible and what is not. It is difficult to predict what kind of infrastructure may or may not be plausible more than about 20-30 years out at the most, as technological progress is constantly accelerating and is impossible to foresee. In regards to the hyperloop, that may well be plausible on the scale being talked about now, and as for transcontinental links, those are far enough in the future that it is futile to speculate about them now.

[TimG]

While your arguments are all very practical, the reality is that periodically transformative technologies are developed that change what is plausible and what is not.

In principle I agree but I have noticed that transformative technologies tend not to apply to domains where large amounts of physical material need to deployed. For example, the real dollar cost of building a home has not really decreased in 100+ years even if the quality of those homes has increased (though tech gadgets and better engineering that make living in the home more comfortable - i.e. advancements that do not increase the physical matter deployed). This is the basis for my belief that a trans-ocean fixed link will never be practical. Edited September 28, 2013 by TimG

[dre]

makes it a much worse investment even if the operating costs are lower

No it simply makes it a longer term investment.

[Wilber]

For those who dare to dream, anything is possible.

Only if they can find someone to pay for it.

[dre]

Only if they can find someone to pay for it.

But there is already someone to pay for it. Massive ammounts of money are already spent on transcontinental shipment of people and goods. If a new system even cost a few pennies less per KG shipped it would pay for itself within a few years.