

Hyperloop De-hyped - rdl
http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=8186#more-8186

======
rdl
I don't agree with this guy's analysis.

1) The problem with aviation for routes like SFO-LAX is _not_ the TSA (which
could be solved), but airport capacity. Without huge capital upgrades (which
are infeasible, and would be well more than $10b per airport due to
surroundings), you can't really handle more planes. It makes more sense to use
SFO slots to fly to NRT than to LAX. You use smaller planes for SFO-LAX than
you do for SFO-NRT, too (although I guess you could use something like those
crazy high-capacity Japanese 747s, maybe with turboprops...)

2) On the SF side, there's a reasonably well developed infrastructure of
public transit to tie in.

3) Hell yes I'd drive or BART/Caltrain from San Jose up to SF to take a 35
minute TSA-free ground level trip from SF to LA. If I could do SF to Las Vegas
in 55 minutes with a 5 minute layover, I'd be even happier. The alternatives
are a 5-7 hour drive in my own car, or an equivalent ground travel to an
airport, pain with TSA, flight.

4) There are specific routes (downtown SF to LA, LA to Las Vegas) where there
really are essentially huge volumes of people who want to swap location
frequently. This doesn't replace _all air travel_ , it just replaces those
routes.

