[Urban Sky]

I think it's worth being clear that 'Loop' and 'Hyperloop' are very different ideas. Hyperloop is very dubious and has a lot of very large engineering challenges that make it difficult (read: unlikely) to realize. 'Loop' is just cars/car-like vehicles on underground roads. The economics of that can be debated, but it is clearly technologically possible. It also doesn't need to achieve the fantastical speeds quoted by Musk to be competitive.

In order to ever become competitive, there needs to be a problem your “technology” can solve better than any existing mode and that’s what I struggle to see for “electric manned taxis driving slowly through expensive-to-build tunnels”...

 

[afransen]

In order to ever become competitive, there needs to be a problem your “technology” can solve better than any existing mode and that’s what I struggle to see for “electric manned taxis driving slowly through expensive-to-build tunnels”...

Much has been made of the Loop at LVCC travelling at 35 mph. I wouldn't read too much into that speed. Musk talks about 150 mph, which I think is nuts. But 60 mph/100 kph could be plausible.

 

[Urban Sky]

Much has been made of the Loop at LVCC travelling at 35 mph. I wouldn't read too much into that speed. Musk talks about 150 mph, which I think is nuts. But 60 mph/100 kph could be plausible.

Not with the current tunnel diameter and without guardrails (like those used for “guided buses” in the UK and elsewhere). And again: what exactly would the problem be, which can’t be addressed more effectively and efficiently with existing modes?

The main commonality between Hyperloop and the “Loop” remains that their main purpose seems to be to create the fiction that we can avoid investment in established rail modes (HSR in the case of the Hyperloop or Subways in the case of the “Loop”) because a much more cost-effective alternative (using ridiculously undersized vehicles like pods or ordinary Teslas) “has become available thanks to the genius of Elon Musk”....

 

[MrGoose]

Adding Highway lanes is not going to solve the traffic problem

Adding expensive underground highway lanes is also not going to solve the traffic problem.

Why have Loop, when we could have bus lanes in our existing above ground highways and run autonomous mini-buses within those lanes for a fraction of the cost.

 

[afransen]

Adding Highway lanes is not going to solve the traffic problem

Adding expensive underground highway lanes is also not going to solve the traffic problem.

Why have Loop, when we could have bus lanes in our existing above ground highways and run autonomous mini-buses within those lanes for a fraction of the cost.

If you can make that happen, politically, all the power to you. Highways, being on the surface, don't really bring you close to your destination.

 

[MrGoose]

If you can make that happen, politically, all the power to you. Highways, being on the surface, don't really bring you close to your destination.

And Loop will?

If you're going suburb <-> downtown, then existing/ planned heavy rail infrastructure plus various last mile solutions will take you there, (walking, bikes, buses, autonomous last-mile shuttles). Furthermore, there isn't that much room downtown to fit loop entrances either, especially high capacity loop entrances. And if you're funneling large amounts of Loop shuttles downtown, then might as well create a train line.

If you're going suburb <-> suburb, then highways/ large arterials already exist. And why would you tunnel underground when you have these ROWs that already exist?

Nothing about Loop creates a better solution for any existing or future transit use-case seeing as Loop is just an underground highway lane.

 

[afransen]

And Loop will?

If you're going suburb <-> downtown, then existing/ planned heavy rail infrastructure plus various last mile solutions will take you there, (walking, bikes, buses, autonomous last-mile shuttles). Furthermore, there isn't that much room downtown to fit loop entrances either, especially high capacity loop entrances. And if you're funneling large amounts of Loop shuttles downtown, then might as well create a train line.

If you're going suburb <-> suburb, then highways/ large arterials already exist. And why would you tunnel underground when you have these ROWs that already exist?

Nothing about Loop creates a better solution for any existing or future transit use-case seeing as Loop is just an underground highway lane.

If a private company is paying for the infrastructure, I don't see a big political challenge.

 

[Urban Sky]

If a private company is paying for the infrastructure, I don't see a big political challenge.

You still don’t get it: the purpose of Hyperloop/Loop is not to build expensive infrastructure (beyond some token demonstrators), but to discourage governments from investing in transportation infrastructure which actually addresses mobility issues (by fostering alternatives to exactly the kind of automobile-centric lifestyle Tesla depends on)…

 

[afransen]

If you think Tesla is worried about transit as a threat to marketshare like GM in the 50s, you have a very active imagination. As far as cities not investing in transit because of Loop, I have not seen any evidence of this being the case. I can't imagine it becoming the case unless the broader system Musk plans to build in Vegas is technically and financially successful.

 

[MrGoose]

If you think Tesla is worried about transit as a threat to marketshare like GM in the 50s, you have a very active imagination. As far as cities not investing in transit because of Loop, I have not seen any evidence of this being the case. I can't imagine it becoming the case unless the broader system Musk plans to build in Vegas is technically and financially successful.

The Las Vegas Loop system is the exact sort of transit discouraging behavior that UrbanSky is talking about.

instead of investing in a basic people mover system for the LVCC or a bus/LRT system for the county, the Vegas government is instead installing the loop system as a distracting alternative.

These systems would be so much more effective for Vegas. Especially the Vegas strip, which is the perfect place for a tram system.

 

[UrbanJon]

If you think Tesla is worried about transit as a threat to marketshare like GM in the 50s, you have a very active imagination. As far as cities not investing in transit because of Loop, I have not seen any evidence of this being the case. I can't imagine it becoming the case unless the broader system Musk plans to build in Vegas is technically and financially successful.

Elon Musk fits the classic trope of a 1950s auto executive lobbying against anything not road based so they can sell cars. For example:

Creates hyperloop as a response to turn people against California high speed rail because having an alternative to driving isn't good for Tesla

Pushes the Tesla Semi as cheaper than rail freight

Creates the loop to turn tech-oriented people against transit investment


Also, I feel like we are going way off topic talking about the loop system here given that this is a thread about hyperloop.

 

[afransen]

The Las Vegas Loop system is the exact sort of transit discouraging behavior that UrbanSky is talking about.

instead of investing in a basic people mover system for the LVCC or a bus/LRT system for the county, the Vegas government is instead installing the loop system as a distracting alternative.

These systems would be so much more effective for Vegas. Especially the Vegas strip, which is the perfect place for a tram system.

There was, as far as I know, no plan for a people mover at LVCC. If there was, it would never have been delivered for $50M.

 

[MrGoose]

There was, as far as I know, no plan for a people mover at LVCC. If there was, it would never have been delivered for $50M.

A surface bus system could've delivered the same or more capacity as the LVCC loop at a fraction of the cost.

An underground people mover could've been built using slightly larger tunnels, at maybe half the cost because of smaller stations, with way more capacity.

 

[UrbanJon]

 

[Urban Sky]

Yes, just in the same way as we may all live on Mars one day - or not^^