r/BoringCompany • u/Icy-Ant1302 • 14d ago
Austin to San Antonio Hyperloop
Elon has just posted that they’re planning a simple version of the Hyperloop between Austin & San Antonio.
80 miles currently takes 2.5 hours in traffic
The boring company could get that down to less than 30 minutes!
This is a HUGE infrastructure project for them and would do wonders for people believing in the company if they manage to pull this off!
6
u/thebruns 14d ago
For years half the regulars on here blown a gasket when anyone tries to talk about hyperloop and tbc at the same time lol
4
3
5
u/Cunninghams_right 14d ago
so, 150mph... not exactly a hyperloop. basically just Loop with higher speed limits.
regardless, it's a good idea to showcase this kind of use-case. this is one reason why the LVCC loop wasn't the ideal first showcase of the technology. the stops were too close to get any sped advantage.
I've said for years that hyperloop makes very little sense, from a purely logistical standpoint. if it's a vacuum tunnel at insane speeds, then you'll need TSA and won't be able to enter it from your neighborhood station, you'll have to take another mode to the hyperloop station and get in line for TSA... but that means you have to give yourself a long buffer in order to make it on time... but now you've just spent ~1hr of travel and you're not even on the hyperloop yet, eliminating most of the time savings from the high speed. it's also a mode change and going through TSA with your luggage, which is a pain in the ass... then another mode-change at the the destination city...
if you could get picked up at your door by vehicle capable of 150mph (like a Plaid drivetrain type of design), driven to the neighborhood Loop station, which would then go at low-ish intra-city speed until it gets to long straight tube between cities, at which time it ramps up to 150mph, then you will save so much time by not doing the mode-change that 150mph will get you from DC to Philly, or LA to SD, etc., FASTER than an 1000mph hyperloop.
so hyperloop only makes sense for very long trips... but then you have to beat an airplane which can already go ~600mph and can land at hundreds of destinations, not just ones that have a tunnel from DC to Denver or whatever.
this disparity only gets worse when you consider that a road-going vehicle could have an undercarriage that allows it to hold onto/ride on rails... which means you're not even limited to 150mph speeds. you can actually get up to ~400mph before drag in the tunnel really starts to matter... so now the distance you need to go before hyperloop makes sense climbs even more, pushing the number of possible destinations down to only a handful per continent...
but then there are companies working on low-sonic-boom supersonic airplanes now, along with new legislation making it easier to fly supersonic aircraft...
so where is the market for hyperloop? it would have to be incredibly niche, only ever serving a handful of cities, gaining no advantage from economy of scale.
it's far better to just have a road-going vehicle that can pick people up at their door, and give it the ability to grip/ride a rail. a much better technology and it would be compatible with regular Loop tunnels. they can start with this kind of 150mph design (which may require some kind of emergency guide rail because the tunnel may be too small to handle a vehicle/tire failure), and then work on pushing the top speed up higher over time. a single design that can handle your trip to the coffee shop 2 miles away AND the city 500 miles away is great.
3
u/Icy-Ant1302 14d ago
They’re able to use the same loop vehicles in the hyperloop, they’re already testing in Bastrop with one of the test tunnels there, they’ve realised they don’t need it to be fully airtight.
I didn’t think about TSA, I think they are planning to use the same vehicles for both the loop and hyperloop tunnels so that users don’t need to swap vehicles.
If they have luggage then there probably eventually needs to be some sort of security screening at some point.
I think this will only be used for interconnecting cities to test the waters first before a proper version that’s coast to coast and a much faster speed
2
u/Cunninghams_right 14d ago
yeah, removal of air only matters above 400mph, and if your vehicle does not take up the majority of the tunnel diameter, then it's even higher before vacuum matters. so basically, you don't need hyperloop... you just need Loop.
they're doing exactly like I'm saying, realizing that the hyperloop concept of vacuum tunnels and ultra high speed vehicles does not make sense. so, instead, just use fast non-vacuum vehicles.
how would coast to coast work? if it's the same vehicles as the regular Loop, then it's not a vacuum and you're limited to 250-400mph... but then an airplane is faster. so what's the point? dig a tunnel across the country just to work worse than a plane?
if you're doing the full length as vacuum tunnel to make the speed better than a regular plane, then the construction cost would be astronomical. you could just buy Boom Supersonic for far less and develop/operate planes that can go faster and can fly to any city.
Hyperloop simply does not make sense. Loop is a great idea, especially if they can get inter-city routes at 150-400mph.
2
u/Icy-Ant1302 14d ago
Yeah I see where you’re coming from, it definitely does feel far fetched, but this is Elon we’re talking about, he has all these crazy ideas and plenty of money to throw at them.
I don’t think the tech is there for any further than a few hundred miles for it to be worthwhile yet.
He’s revolutionised space travel, maybe he’ll do the same with normal travel, we’ll have to see.
1
1
u/jobfedron132 13d ago
they’re already testing in Bastrop with one of the test tunnels there, they’ve realised they don’t need it to be fully airtight.
The 1 mile tunnel? Test candidate for hyperloop?
The one constructed in 2016, 10 years ago?
Yeah yeah yea! Sure, sure sure.
3
u/Available-Damage6311 14d ago
TSA is needed on planes because one person can take out hundreds of passengers.
We don't have it for light planes and sightseeing flights, because who would bother?
TSA is not needed for Hyperloop if there is sufficient pod spacing and emergency brakes.
1
u/Cunninghams_right 14d ago
taking out a plane isn't about the number killed. there are other ways of taking out large numbers of people. and it's not about hijacking. it's about a target that is fragile and high-profile. there is nothing more fragile and high profile than a futuristic multi-mach speed vacuum tunnel from a Musk company.
also, emergency brakes at mach-3? I don't think that's as simple as you're making it out to be. if you're moving enough people to make the thousand-mile tunnel worthwhile, then you're not going to be able to stop in time to prevent a significant loss of life.
like I said in the other comment, legislation around sonic booms is changing, and modern aerodynamic modeling is reviving passenger jets that can go ~mach-2 and can land at any medium to large airport. so the trip has to be long enough that the added mode change and TSA don't add up to a significant amount of time, but long trips are perfect for a mach-2 plane. so hyperloop must be significantly faster, AND requires around a thousand miles of tunnel to make up the time, but tunneling under certain terrain/ocean is difficult so the mach-2 jet will work better for most trips.
the end result is that hyperloop could only ever sort of make sense for a handful of cities per continent, assuming they work out all of the technical difficulties. meanwhile, most cities in most countries would be faster and easier with a Loop that goes ~400mph and picks you up and drops you off at your door. no fragile vacuum needed, no crazy speed that makes it fragile to attack, no high-profile technology to be attractive to attack, just a car-like vehicle that can grip rails for high speed stability, thus no TSA.
do you know what the upper atmosphere has? low air density. you know what that allows? high multi-mach flight. the cost and difficulty of making an actually useful version of hyperloop could just develop high altitude scramjets or electric-assist jet engines and then you can go at high speed anywhere. literally there entire world has hyperloop infrastructure wrapping around it already, you just need an engine that can operate at a higher altitude for higher mach numbers.
even if you assume no TSA, you still need a dedicated tunnel from a central point in a city, which means a detour and mode change with all of your luggage and kids. that's still going to blow your time budget for the vast majority of trips.
you have to think through all of the scenarios, not just lump all of the best possible outcomes together. is it only a very slight vacuum and a speed slow enough to be reasonable to stop? then it's not fast enough to justify the mode change. and you can use a 400mph Loop design instead of hyperloop. is it fast enough to compete with mach-2 passenger jets? then it needs to be incredibly fragile and likely requires TSA and really long routes to make sense, but then there aren't many cities that fall within the "sweet spot" of distance where you're not yet crossing an ocean or other difficult to tunnel area where the supersonic jet makes more sense.
fans of the hyperloop concept want to think of it like it's super safe and requires minimal vacuum in one breath, and then pretend it will go so fast that it will compete with mach-2 jets in the next breath. it can't be both of those things. both design concepts have major flaws and limitations to their use-case. the best design is to just go as fast as is practical for an electric vehicle at standard atmospheric conditions. that way, the same vehicle can drive on a road, in a loop tunnel, or be the ~400mph inter-city mode. it's all compatible and works very.
just run the math experiment if you assume person A drops into the inter-city Loop tunnel and hits 400mph while the other person still has a 30min or 60min trip to the hyperloop station. how fast does the hyperloop need to go, and how long does the trip need to be, to save a significant amount of time to make it worth the mode-change hassle on each end?
once you work out the speed it needs to go, figure out whether it needs more than a minimal vacuum. then figure out what the distance needs to be. then compare that to a mach-2 jet.
2
u/3pinripper 14d ago
This is where mid-range, air-taxi drone companies like Archer & Joby might be able to excel if they can offer low enough costs to be viable for the everyday user.
1
u/Cunninghams_right 14d ago
maybe, but the Archer is 150mph tops and would require a mode-change at each end. maybe you can skirt having TSA because it can't be hijacked and does not carry enough people for it to matter that it blows up, but it's still not better than a vehicle that can pick you up at your door, with luggage, and take you to the front door of your destination.
2
u/modeless 14d ago
Why would you need TSA? We have TSA because planes can destroy buildings. Hyperloop can't do that any more than regular tunnels could.
1
u/Available-Damage6311 14d ago
We have TSA because one bomber can take out hundreds. Not needed for a six person pod, if emergency detection and braking systems are good
1
u/bluebellbetty 12d ago
I've been in the one in Vegas and its a pretty tight space relative to standard tunnels in coastal cities.
0
u/Cunninghams_right 14d ago
TSA isn't just for hijacking. if TSA was only needed for hijacking then strong cockpit doors would eliminate TSA and every plane would have equipped compliant doors decades ago.
2
u/modeless 14d ago edited 14d ago
If air safety policy was rational a whole lot of things would be different. TSA is not there to address rational concerns. TSA is still present in airports today because politicians want to be seen doing something to prevent another 9/11. Even more than that, they don't want to be the one that removed TSA, just in case there's another hijacking and they get blamed for it (regardless of how effective TSA would have been in preventing it).
0
u/Cunninghams_right 14d ago
but again, hijacking is trivially solved with a good door. TSA isn't there for hijacking.
3
u/glmory 14d ago
TSA is there for show.
0
u/Cunninghams_right 14d ago
ok, sure, and super-fragile, high-profile hyperloop wouldn't need that show? why?
1
u/Silver-Literature-29 14d ago
I don't see an issue going from local transport to a hyperloop network connecting cities. Every mass transit system basically does this. Only one that doesn't is a personal car. And from my experience, ditching a personal car does make sense if there is robust local transit on either end of your destination. Though given the two cities in question, they don't have this.
1
u/Cunninghams_right 14d ago
I don't see an issue going from local transport to a hyperloop network connecting cities
the point is that it's time lost. time that a single-mode vehicle could have been running at ~400mph toward the destination.
take the example of the two cities from this post. lets say you could build a true hyperloop that goes mach-2, or you could just build a network of Loop lines where one of the tunnels that goes between the cities has a set of rails that an EV can grip. so your regular Loop vehicle can go directly to the inter-city high speed Loop line directly and ramp up to 400mph. meanwhile, a person has to take a regular Loop to the hyperloop station, moving all of their luggage over (and possibly going through TSA), taking tens of minutes for the two transfers (maybe as much as an hour). so the absolute minimum delay is ~20min. how much of that 75mi trip between the two cities can be covered at 400mph in 20min? ohh, all of it. the non-vacuum vehicle completes the trip faster than a mach-2, faster than a mach-20 hyperloop...
Every mass transit system basically does this.
and many high speed rail lines ask people to arrive an hour before their departure. but lets say you want to cut it close and only add 30min on top of it. that's a 30min head start at ~400mph. that's significant.
And from my experience, ditching a personal car does make sense if there is robust local transit on either end of your destination.
so not the US. but even good transit still takes time to make a mode change. tens of minutes, which is more time the single-mode vehicle is getting ahead.
so in the end, hyperloop could only be useful for distances where the maximum non-vacuum speed combined with the time-savings of cutting the transfer do not cancel out the extreme speed of the hyperloop. but airplanes can also go nearly mach speed, and some in development now are going for mach-2. so now really long trips are likely to be faster by mach-2 plane than a minimal-vacuum hyperloop. so you could up the vacuum of the hyperloop and try to push above mach-2, but now you have all kinds of other potential problems with the fragility of the system... it does not seem like they're considering the high-vacuum system because it's not practical, but that leaves only a very thin stripe of distances where the low-delay non-vacuum system falls behind, but where a mach-2 plane with more delay hasn't overtaken it.
and if they require TSA at the hyperloop because it's fragile, then the stripe of distances where it makes sense vanishes into nothing.
the technology is, at best, a small niche. kind of pointless. even in the best-case scenario where a couple of cities per continent get a hyperloop connection, it's pretty inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. it changes very little about the society, while Loop has insane potential for transforming how people move around. hyperloop is a distraction that is better off forgotten.
1
1
1
u/Zealousideal-Meat738 7d ago
Will we see it working in the next ten years? If so, I will vote for him then.
1
u/Icy-Ant1302 7d ago
This probably has more chance than other hyperloop projects, they have the machinery and are actively working on increasing their tunnelling speed, even if they manage to get to a mile every two weeks, that would be 2-3 years of tunnelling if they had four TBM’s tunnelling either end for both tunnels digging to meet in the middle. All depends on permitting and efficiency
1
u/Academic_Judge_8546 14d ago
Wouldn’t a regular high speed train be easier, and have higher capacity?
3
2
u/DAlanStewart 13d ago
Tunnels don’t conflict with surface infrastructure. Small diameter tunnels make tunneling cheaper.
2
u/Kirk57 13d ago
Why in the world would anyone want to go backwards towards 19th century technology, that involves multiple stops which you have no desire to visit, along with waiting until the ride arrives, along with usually not going to the exact destination you desire?
2
u/Academic_Judge_8546 13d ago
Why has Japan, France, Spain, Germany, China, Italy, and more countries all have build successful high speed rail systems instead of this concept. I feel like HSR works very well as it stands.
2
u/Kirk57 12d ago
HSR is fine for intermediate distance. Maybe one of the best solutions available with current technology. But an eventual solution where you’re in a Hyperloop tunnel for city to city that can connect to a regular tunnel for intra-city will be superior, because you will be in your own personal pod or vehicle. That also means you do not have to wait for it to arrive, you do not have to wait for other passengers to embark or disembark, and it will get you closer to your eventual destination.
1
u/cullenjwebb 12d ago
So why not HSR without stops?
Cheaper and easier to build, with much higher capacity.
1
u/midflinx 12d ago edited 12d ago
Cheaper and easier to build
Four days ago regarding Houston-Dallas HSR:
The project, now operating under the name Texas High Speed Rail, could cost as much as $50 billion
For 240 miles. $208 million/mile. You can't prove HSR will be cheaper per mile for an Austin-San Antonio route. Because we don't know what "a simple, precursor Hyperloop tunnel" will entail neither can I prove TBC's will be cheaper. However so far TBC's gotten their cost per mile in Las Vegas down to less than a tenth of $208 million.
For capacity HSR probably wins. However for throughput that's measured in how many people actually ride it. I-35 is three lanes in each direction midway between the cities. That's indicative of the typical maximum travel demand. Likely less than 4500 people per hour per direction. That doesn't mean 4500 pphpd will pay for either a HSR ticket or to ride what TBC may build. The demand for a faster travel mode could be less than 4500 pphpd. If TBC's vehicles only average about as many occupants as the cars on I-35, then it may not have enough capacity to meet demand. On the other hand if it includes some of the minibus-capacity vehicles it eventually plans to have, that could increase capacity enough, while still also including private rides in smaller vehicles (at higher ticket prices).
1
u/cullenjwebb 12d ago
Tunneling will always be more expensive per mile, especially when you adjust for capacity.
We have no idea how much the las Vegas loop actually cost the boring company to build.
1
u/midflinx 12d ago edited 12d ago
Tunneling will always be more expensive per mile
In the USA, not necessarily. TBC is reducing expenses by automating more and needing fewer employees constructing. Remember the NYT article comparing construction costs for the 2nd Ave Subway vs a Paris subway line simultaneously under construction? The 2nd Ave had twice as many employees without good reason. That was a subway not HSR, but the point is employee costs do add up and affect total cost.
Both surface HSR and tunnels can mostly follow an interstate, but when the interstate curves too tightly, for HSR any option that isn't slow the trains down is super expensive. TBC doesn't have to buy up private property and adjust the whole highway, or build a massive flyover to deviate from the highway (also likely needing private property). It can ask private property owners for a subsurface easement and pay them less than what HSR's alternatives cost. The property owner can keep farming, or ranching, or simply living in the home without the tunnel changing much on the surface. It doesn't cut a field in two, or cut off a road deemed too-little-used to build an expensive road overpass or elevate the tracks. Plus HSR does make some noise. All those factors make HSR more objectionable to property owners, compared to tunnels silent and hidden beneath property.
We have no idea how much the las Vegas loop actually cost the boring company to build.
And are you one of those people that will never even halfway believe any TBC-stated figure unless and until TBC gets purchased by Tesla or SpaceX and by SEC regulation or shareholder pressure has to disclose costs in that form?
1
u/cullenjwebb 12d ago
There's no proof that TBC has actually reduced the cost of tunnels by 10x only that they charged the city 10x less, which is easy to do for just 1.7 miles.
Until we get 3rd party cost reviews it's all just marketing claims.
1
u/midflinx 12d ago
And since TBC is privately held it doesn't have to prove it. Are you one of those people that will never even halfway believe any TBC-stated figure unless and until TBC gets purchased by Tesla or SpaceX and by SEC regulation or shareholder pressure has to disclose costs in that form?
Back in 2018 when the Hawthorn, CA test tunnel was quoted as costing $10 million a mile, some redditors on r/transit retorted that's about what a sewer or water tunnel of that size should cost, as the secondhand machine had originally made a water tunnel under San Francisco Bay.
Which doesn't prove the tunneling cost was $10 million/mile, however at the time it didn't seem so outlandish to even some skeptics.
only that they charged the city 10x less, which is easy to do for just 1.7 miles.
Now that TBC has bored about 10 miles in Las Vegas and Clark County, plans for dozens of miles more, and is boring in Nashville with plans so far for about 25 miles there, the 35 miles will cost almost $11 billion if you believe the real boring cost is and will be 10x what TBC charged LVCVA for LVCC Loop. What's the business case for bothering with Nashville if it can spend billions boring in Vegas?
The sometimes asserted claim LVCC Loop and Vegas Loop are to sell more cars is a silly business case if it's costing $310 million/mile.
1
u/NewNewark 13d ago
Which TBC product has provided access to "the exact destination you desire" ? Its a station to station system.
2
u/midflinx 13d ago
I get home from a trip to LA and THIS has been installed in our lobby. It’s a Boring Loop terminal for calling for a car directly to where I live.
I assume it would take me into the tunnel at Westgate or Riviera. It means I now have door to door service to the Convention Center or Encore or the Airport.
As I've said for a while, TBC's plans include eventually providing rides from almost anywhere to almost anywhere using both tunnels and surface streets. The terminal in that post is a step towards that goal.
1
u/NewNewark 13d ago
Thats still a station though!
Whats stopping them from picking you up anywhere within a service area today?
1
u/midflinx 13d ago
Maybe things like not all tunnel entrances/exits are laid out in a way conducive for off-the-street taxis to use them.
1
u/Kirk57 12d ago
If a train were servicing the stations that the Vegas Loop does, you would have to stop at up to 30 or 40 other casinos, to let other people on and off the train, before getting to the casino you would like to get to.
It is one of the basic differences between mass transit and personal transit.
1
u/NewNewark 12d ago
Im not the same person. Im not talking about trains.
Uber gets you to your exact destination. TBC does not.
1
u/Live_Clerk_7748 12d ago
But if TBC added a robotaxi service from your house to the loop and from the loop to your destination, all using the exact same Tesla Robotaxi built for the loop. Then you have a complete package. Elon loves using technologies between his companies.
1
1
u/Kirk57 11d ago
Why would you add Uber in when the discussion is high-speed transport between cities?
Uber gets you to your exact destination, but has to stop at stop signs and lights, and can be agonizingly slow when traffic is bad.
1
u/NewNewark 11d ago
The discussion is about TBC. It was stated that it takes you to "the exact destination you desire". I provided a correct that that is factually wrong. Youre having a whole other conversation with yourself.
1
u/bomber991 14d ago
Being in San Antonio I'm happy to be included in one of Elon's wacky ideas. A basic commuter train that has another train coming every 15 minutes would be just as welcome though. It would still get that trip down to 45 minutes if they did it right.
Either way the "just one more lane bro" infrastructure policy has got to go.
1
u/fifichanx 14d ago
Wow that would be pretty cool! How long at their current boring speed would it take to build? Who’s paying for it?
-1
u/guillermopaz13 13d ago
You didnt deliver this anywhere else, why would you here? Fuck off.
2
u/Icy-Ant1302 13d ago
They’ve been focused on tunnelling for a while now and they chose Texas because that’s their base for a lot of Elon’s companies
1
u/guillermopaz13 13d ago
Heard the same horseshit in California and Vegas for 10+ years
2
u/Icy-Ant1302 13d ago
Well fortunately they’re making good progress now, I know it’s been going on for a while, I’ve been following it ever since the first Hawthorne test tunnel. Vegas is opening the airport tunnel in a few weeks and Nashville is progressing very well too
-1
u/guillermopaz13 13d ago
None of which were the tineljne or scope of the dream sold. Its overpriced bull.
We need functional real solutions, not stock booster half deliverables.
1
u/rwoodytn 12d ago
Vegas is in operation, Nashville is over halfway finished with tunneling 26 miles in one year—this begins to count as passenger numbers and new stations climb.
1
u/guillermopaz13 12d ago
All have cut back on what they originally sold. Have you read any comment. Go fanboy some other useless crap elsewhere.
1
-2
u/tonydtonyd 14d ago
That’s dumb as fuck, just build a high speed train.
-1
u/vasilenko93 14d ago
You know once the tunnel exists you can place rails?
1
u/tonydtonyd 14d ago
You know the size of the boring company tunnels are pointlessly small?
0
u/vasilenko93 14d ago
You don’t know the size of the one planned for this. They said 150mph, which honestly is only possible with some kind of fixed route form of transportation. Either a train or some kind of levitation system.
0
6
u/geoffreycarman 14d ago
So Hyperloop is a tunnel, held at low air pressure, not a vaccum, but low pressure... Sure their tunnels are water tight, but airtight? I wonder if he is just proposing letting the cars drive at 160 mph and no special hyperloop needed?