Elon Musk's Hyperloop vision imagines a high-speed intercity transport system using capsules propelled through low-pressurized tubes — revolutionizing travel as we know it. On Aug. 20, the Hyperloop vision took another step toward reality with the announcement that construction is slated to begin in 2016.
Despite the excitement surrounding the news, some transportation experts think that when you compare the Hyperloop concept to an existing technology — rail travel — it falls short in an obvious way.
In a statement to MultiBriefs Exclusive, Jim Mathews, president and CEO of the National Association of Railroad Passengers (NARP), said the Hyperloop devalues rail's "hyperefficiency" in servicing multiple cities and end-points while using one track. Not only can the current concept of the Hyperloop not do this, it may even provide a service that's worse.
Efficiency regression
Recently, Hyperloop Transportation Technologies (HTT) announced that its collective of professionals had grown to include companies such as Oerlikon, AECOM and Hodgetts & Fung, making the number of devotees working on the project to more than 400. HTT took up the reins for realizing a Hyperloop reality after Musk published his plans for the concept for other interested parties.
Initially, the idea was met with a healthy amount of skepticism.
"I personally have mixed feelings about the Hyperloop," Mathews continued. "On one hand, [the project] generates interest in 'rail' as a concept."
Unfortunately, belief that the Hyperloop provides a better or even equal alternative to our existing rail industry perpetuates a fundamental misunderstanding. When people think about the transportation industry, they tend to lump rail and air travel together, which is unfair. The Hyperloop is actually more akin to air travel as both transportation models are limited to two end points: a departure and an arrival point.
Conversely, this is an inefficiency that rail has long overcome.
"A single train on a single [route] might serve 475 separate city-pairs, while a simple point-to-point flight serves two," Mathews said. "If you look at the hundreds of passengers who get on and off along the way on a single trip, rail as a very efficient way of moving many people along the entirety of a route becomes clear. Hyperloop doesn't serve 400-plus internal city-pair combinations along its length."
Echoing his sentiments, Sean Jeans-Gail, vice president of NARP, noted the organization "isn't wedded to a particular technology. However, we're working for 'A Connected America,' and that means [including] the communities in between the megacities."
The towns described pejoratively as "zip-through country" in terrestrial transport, are just as important as towns referred to as "flyover country" by airlines. It could be argued the Hyperloop would damage these towns worse than airlines.
Unlike airplane routes, the communities along a Hyperloop route would have to deal with the "disruption of the construction, the eminent domain-fueled land purchases, and the disruptive presence of the tube viaducts — with none of the benefits of hyperlink service. They'd literally be stuck on the outside, looking in," Jeans-Gail said.
"All of this assumes the design is such that end-to-end travel is the only possible service configuration," he reminded. "I don't know that to be the case. I doubt whether very many people do know — perhaps not even Musk himself.
"Which brings us to the final point: It would be irresponsible to let an untested, unproven idea keep us from moving ahead with projects to provide near-term solutions to existing problems. Until we have a proof-of-concept, policymakers should keep moving ahead with rail expansion and improvement projects."
A 3-D sketch of the Hyperloop infrastructure. The steel tubes are rendered transparent in this image. (Image: Wikipedia)
'Untested' dangers
HTT completed a feasibility study in December 2014 and struck a deal with land owners in California's Central Valley, giving HTT easement for the first 5-mile full-scale passenger transport system.
However, feasibility doesn’t necessarily equate to ease-of-travel. There are many untested factors about the Hyperloop that the current strides toward fruition have done little to alleviate.
For one, although encasing the travelling capsule in a tube removes previous issues such as air friction and noise that trains encounter, the method comes with its own set of problems.
Co-inventor of the maglev train, James Powell, Ph.D., noted that previous designs of the Hyperloop only allowed for three-hundredths of an inch between the tube wall and the skis encircling the pod. "Getting [the ride] that smooth won't be easy," he said. As a result, the project may end up requiring a much more expensive production process than originally planned.
Transportation blogger Alon Levy took things a step further, detailing several key points that, if unchecked and untested, could turn the Hyperloop into a "terrifying 'barf ride.'" Levy notes the Hyperloop's "extreme speed would subject passengers to g-forces that go way beyond today's high-speed trains and airplanes and that most people would find frightening."
It seems the biggest problems with the Hyperloop would be coupling its planned speed (approaching 900 feet per second) with the possibility of track misalignment. With seismic activity and ground settling, the Hyperloop's track would almost inevitably become uneven. Travelling an uneven track at such a speed is a recipe for passenger motion sickness at best, and actual physical harm at worst.
The solution?
In the end, Levy thinks the benefits of the Hyperloop can be accomplished with high-speed rail — a method that would simultaneously avoid Hyperloop's handicaps.
When it comes to passenger capacity, as well as total price of realization, safety and efficiency, experts seem to agree that the Hyperloop concept, as it stands now, pales in comparison to high-speed rail and our current rail model.
