LA To NYC In Under An Hour, Hyperloop System Will Let You Travel At 4,000 MPH

By: | July 12th, 2013

Commuting is a way of life for most Bay Area residents. Many people are accustomed to an hour commute each way without traffic. Some people even commute to Southern California several times a month, spending several hours each way either in the car or fighting through airports. What if there was an alternative to flights and car rides? If it was up to Tesla CEO Elon Musk and a Colorado company, an answer could come sooner than we think.

Hyperloop System

Musk, the man behind both Tesla Motors and SpaceX, has spoken about a high-speed transportation system known as the Hyperloop, a tube transport system that would allow passengers to travel at high speeds. The proposed system could reduce trips between San Francisco and Los Angeles to minutes, and reaching the East Coast from California could take under an hour. Crazy as it seems, the company ET3, based out of Longmont, Colorado, has already been hard at work making this a reality, calling their project the Evacuated Tube Transport.

How Does It Work?

The Hyperloop has been vaguely described by Musk as a “cross between a Concorde, a rail gun, and an air hockey table.” A better description might be an elevated tube system with a magnetic levitation system similar to high-speed bullet trains. The kicker would be the enclosed tube, which would provide a nearly friction-less surface for individual capsules to travel in.

ET3’s Hyperloop-like project already has a number of schematics and plans already in place. They claim an automobile-sized, six-passenger capsule constructed for “outer space” travel conditions could easily reach speeds of 4,000 miles per hour on longer journeys across the country or across continents. In theory, this elevated tube system could be built for a tenth of the cost of high-speed rail and a quarter the cost of a freeway. The projected cost for a passenger to travel from Los Angeles to New York is $100.

The tubes could be connected to form a new superhighway across the United States. They could go underwater and connect to Alaska, Hawaii, and the rest of the world. ET3 has already built mock-ups and prototypes and is planning a 3-mile test run by the end of 2013.

Expanding on Older Ideas

Despite the ingenuity of the idea, it isn’t actually that new. In 1972, a paper written by physicist R.M Salter described a tube system known as the Very High Speed Transit System (VHST) that could send people across the United States in under an hour. The system was composed of a series of underground tubes arranged in a network across the country. While several technical problems existed with the idea at the time, Salter also concluded, “The general principles are fairly straightforward: electromagnetically levitated and propelled cars in an evacuated tunnel.” The one primary difference between Salter’s plan and ET3’s is that the VHST would need to be underground, with massive amounts of excavation required.

If the Hyperloop or Evacuated Tube Transport was built and succeeded, it could make California’s current high-speed rail project obsolete. With a budgeted cost of $70 billion, the high-speed system currently under development would take passengers from San Francisco to L.A. in three hours, potentially six times slower than the Hyperloop. [via]

Jeremy Helms

Jeremy Helms is an engineering enthusiast. You can also find Jeremy on Google+.

View more articles by Jeremy Helms.

LinkedIn Google+ 

More articles from Industry Tap...

221 thoughts on “LA To NYC In Under An Hour, Hyperloop System Will Let You Travel At 4,000 MPH

  1. Victor
    July 16, 2013 at 10:10 am

    The person envisioning this clearly does not understand what economic development is. This system would obviate the product of millions of motor vehicles and significantly reduce the need for road maintenance and construction. This would mean the loss of millions of jobs. The economy is about reciprocity; people doing things for one another to get things they need in the process. What would all those millions of auto workers do? How could this technology lead to any other industries to fill the void of loss of existing transportation jobs? The greater connectivity of distant locations could also lead to a loss in jobs as companies merge and cover greater geographic areas leading to redundant employees and layoffs.

    It may be great for humanity to have this kind of connectivity, but it’s not clear how this would translate to a better economy or wealth creation for the average person. It won’t.

    1. Ben Bernanke
      July 16, 2013 at 11:41 am

      “It may be great for humanity to have this kind of connectivity, but itโ€™s not clear how this would translate to a better economy or wealth creation for the average person. It wonโ€™t.”

      And this is why capitalism is a failure, folks. In a nutshell. A system where we value money more than human life and advancement.

      1. Dirk K.
        July 16, 2013 at 12:59 pm

        Victor is stating that this will affect human life by causing those to suffer because their previous skills are now unnecessary (though I doubt roads will be replaced, trucking is the capillary system of our world). Money is the ultimate expression of civilization. It comes from work and effort. Without money you have only what you can barter.

        1. Chris
          July 16, 2013 at 2:35 pm

          Yeah, you know because heaven forbid we make transportation across long distances easier… those airplanes and interstate highway systems RUINED the economy and made life a living hell

          1. P
            July 17, 2013 at 2:06 pm

            horses ruined jobs when they became domesticated. Come on dream a little. Airplane cost get higher and costumer service gets crappier. We are the ones getting screwed always.

          2. Gus
            July 18, 2013 at 10:29 am

            Look, from the description of this system, they are talking about a limited number of people riding in one cart. this will not be a mass system for at least two generations. People need to adapt. Economic development, in your speak, cannot happen without ingenuity, and this is ingenuity in the works. there will still be plenty of jobs out there because i need to get to work. If anything, this affects the airline industry more than anything. Everyone else will be okay.

      2. Trenton
        July 16, 2013 at 2:28 pm

        Both of your remarks are ridiculous. Capitalism is not the stifling of innovation; it is the opposite. It is a system based on the needs of the market (demand of the people) to deliver the best goods and services through innovation and competition. This is the only way to allow state of the art technology to be created in a affordable manner.

        Therefore, Victor, the advancement in technology and human ability may not lead to more (or less) jobs, but will shift the market for new jobs that will be created because of this technology. Old jobs may be obsolete, but new ones will be created if people are willing to adapt.

        And Ben Bernanke, we haven’t had actual free market capitalism in America for the last century. What you’re arguing isn’t even close to capitalism. Please educate yourself before bashing something and displaying your ignorance.

        1. Ao
          July 16, 2013 at 4:43 pm

          Thanks for having some sense. I’m so sick of all the reasons and excuses people come up with about why the USA should hold technology back.

          The thing that the USA needs more than anything else is technological kick in the pants. Enough of these incumbent mega corps stifling advancement in the name of profit.

          Asphalt, trains, cars, and planes all completely revolutionized the world… and they all cannibalized some industry to do so.

          We must advance. Industries are a natural organic occurrence. New vibrant industries will rise to take the place of the industries created by yesterday’s technology.

          1. Jay
            July 18, 2013 at 10:02 pm

            The government stifles more technologically advancing ideas than you can imagine. Do you really think they cant make a car engine that does better than 50mpg? Do you think there isn’t anything out there that can cure cancer? The country is run by corporations. Corporations pay the government to stop advancement so they can milk the current systems.

          2. Shelley Cole
            July 20, 2013 at 6:52 pm

            So right on! If we are not moving forward we are loosing ground and will fall so far behind for the generations to come.
            That would be the worst thing we could do. Status quo is not looking into the future.

        2. Brandy
          July 16, 2013 at 6:49 pm

          Great Response Trenton.

        3. Anthony
          July 16, 2013 at 7:20 pm

          Couldnt have said it better.

        4. Berliner
          July 17, 2013 at 5:49 am

          Kudos, Trenton. Very well said.

          It is preposterous to think that such technology would be created over night. This technology would be created over a generation (as the informational video suggests) allowing for the organic change within the economy to capitalize on new opportunities created by the new technology and new connectivity.

          Commercial flights took off two generations ago and today we are flying at speeds slower than in the 70s (i.e., the Concorde). Aside primarily from safety innovation and fuel efficiency improvements (although still overwhelmingly reliant on fossil fuels) our primary transit is still technology from the turn of the last century.
          The United States, which had such vision as to build the transcontinental railroad and Interstate highway system in the past has become so short-sighted that our reactive approach to investment and innovation has left us with a terribly deficient infrastructure system. ( It’s an embarrassment really. It’s a breath of fresh air to see something truly revolutionary finally coming across the table. I wish this technology all the success in the world.

          And as an American expat, I’d love to see the US retake the lead as the driving force behind life-improving technologies.

        5. jeffrey
          July 17, 2013 at 11:12 pm

          I bet they felt sad for the Blacksmiths and Farriers for a while, after the automobile. It seems to have all worked out.

          1. Herman
            July 19, 2013 at 3:03 pm

            Agreed. Did anyone shed a tear for the whaling industry when petroleum and natural gas became useful and economical as replacements?

        6. Robert
          July 18, 2013 at 5:34 am

          Agreed: what would have been the case if we said airplanes ruined the millions of jobs in the shipping industry? Or computers ruining the typewriting industry? Or sewing machines ruining the millions of tailors? Or agricultural machinery ruining the millions of jobs in farming?

          With innovation, our economy grown and new markets are created.

        7. Calen
          July 19, 2013 at 1:36 am

          I’m reminded of a scene from the remake of “The Time Traveler” where the main character was enthusiastically describing the possibility of making a microwave that could cook a turkey in 30 minutes. His boss sneered at him and said “That’s ridiculous. Then what would the maids do?”

          A couple points.

          1) Victor’s post sounds reasonable up to the point where you realize that workers in the auto industry have more to offer the world than just their skills at making cars.

          2) There’s a tacit assumption in Victor’s post that this would replace the current highway and automotive system. I can’t envision that happening, and if it were to happen, it would not be a quick process, and the economy would have a long time to adapt.

          3) If anything, the industry this technology would be most likely to affect is the air travel industry. A competitor of this nature would render commercial air travel almost obsolete. While this might improve the economy in the long run (faster travel at a cheaper price), in the short run Victor is absolutely right that we would be left with thousands of workers who were displaced when their skills were rendered obsolete by the new technology. While I’m a capitalist, I’d note that a responsible capitalism would see to it that these people were taken care of as they acquire the skills to find a new place in the changing market. The “relentless competition bolsters the economy” philosophy of capitalism is all fine and well when you’re young and ready to take the world by storm. It’s much more terrifying and unforgiving when you’re fifty and have suddenly found that the skills you’ve spent a lifetime acquiring and honing have suddenly been made redundant by a new economic order, and you are suddenly thrust back into a job hunting market that you’re not sure how to adapt to.

        8. Alan
          July 20, 2013 at 4:17 pm

          @Trenton – well said.

        9. Shelley Cole
          July 20, 2013 at 6:59 pm

          I totally agree.. It is the good old boys network, keeping us from moving forward. If I had the money they have made off the current innovations I would be the first to say go & to invest in the future innovations. Greed makes many just plain stupid.

      3. William Konow
        July 16, 2013 at 4:04 pm

        Well said. I agree completely!!!

      4. Josh
        July 16, 2013 at 6:06 pm

        Exactly! In other words, Capitalism is more important than Humanity. So stunt humanity and let the fatally flawed Capitalist system to go on and on until we destroy ourselves with it. Terrible. Where are the true economists who can come up with a sustainable economic system from Humanity’s future survival? This ET3 transport system will be more practical and valuable when that new model presents itself.

        1. marcos
          July 17, 2013 at 1:36 am

          Flawed? how? it is capitalism that prints paper money to finance huge goverment spending? is capitalism that is regulating the market to oblivion? sorry dute , but communism is fataly flawed, and where communism survived ( or socialism) is dependent on free market, and capitalism ( like China, and now even Cuba. North Korea also is dependent on economic exchange with other countries) so what are you saying is ..lets all become like China? yes this is the solution, because in China you have more capitalism then in America, and the results are evident.

          1. SM
            July 18, 2013 at 10:30 pm

            In fairness, just because a person says that a free market capitalist system is flawed doesn’t mean they are a communist.

      5. Steve
        July 17, 2013 at 1:34 pm

        “And this is why capitalism is a failure, folks. In a nutshell. A system where we value money more than human life and advancement.”
        While I disagree that this would be “bad” for the economy. Capitalism is NOT to blame. Capitalism gave us essentially every invention since the primitive days. If anything, we should be praising capitalism for what it has given us. You wouldn’t have the opportunity to share your thoughts to the world through the internet without it.
        Capitalism =/= value money more than people. Capitalism is the FREEDOM for everyone to pursue their passions and contribute to society. In a nutshell, no capitalism means very, very little progress.

        1. trasbot
          July 18, 2013 at 6:40 am

          Not quite. Capitalist systems (slash mercantile capitalism) often function on the exploitation of other nations/countries/civilizations to benefit a few. Think slavery, multinational companies fucking up governments/being allowed to practice unethically because governments look the other way…the stealing of resources. Not so great if most of the world isn’t benefiting.

          1. mdsdad
            July 18, 2013 at 9:06 am

            Really??!! I guess you feel the communist Soviet Union treated people so much better… everyone had freedom and noone was exploited there, right??!! Oh, and their government operated so ethically to, didn’t they??!! Every system has flaws – capitalism included but while it might be an imperfect system, it is still by far the best system around. If you look at the most important scientific, technological, and medical breakthroughs of the last 100 years – they were all due to capitalism – not your system. In the future, you’d be way better off if you didn’t flaunt your ignorance!

          2. bert
            July 18, 2013 at 7:07 pm

            I love how whenever anyone criticises capitalism, its defenders immediately brings up China and the Soviet Union. Why not propose ways to fix the flaws in the current capitalist system rather than just saying “It’s better than Communism” ?

          3. KP
            July 19, 2013 at 5:49 pm

            Oy. One hits a brick wall when he says “capitalism” or any “ism,” by calling out its ideological antagonists. But it’s just an idea, and not real. None of it. There is only power — then whatever we choose to call it. The truth of our economic system today (U.S., Russia, China, et. al.) is that it is an outgrowth and direct result of globalization by way of imperialism. Call it what you will, but it is sadly not up for much debate.

            The tube thingy sounds pretty sweet though, because I’m poor and like to travel.

      6. Sue
        July 18, 2013 at 6:49 pm

        I will have to disagree with you – it will however, create a stronger world community and commerce. If it goes as described in this video, there is the potential for a global prosperity for anyone who invests and/or utilizes the system. I don’t see a downside to it, really but the key will be to get involved EARLY ahead of the corporate giants, if that is possible yet. If the United States hopes to compete on the global stage, we had better play on the global stage. Future technologies will play a key role and we need to get on board – no pun intended.

      7. Mike O
        July 18, 2013 at 7:37 pm

        Capitalism works just fine among moral and ethical people.

      8. Kernighan
        July 19, 2013 at 8:33 am

        And someone does not understand freemarket capitalism. It’s not purported to be a panacea, or a system of “perfecting” anything. It is purported, in economic literature, to be a way to come to Most Efficient Usage, of Scarce Resources. Thus for the given inputs in labor, materials,and natural resources, time involved to develop, it produces the greatest output. That is how efficiency is measured: Output for a given input.

        Other systems, such as socialism do not have that same level of efficiency, and result in less overall wealth and well being per person on average. Onlookers spend all sorts of time gnashing their teeth about inequality, when those very ultra wealthy they worry about cannot escape basic problems like death, or the ravages of disease. Elysium is just a movie. In reality, a billionaire is just about as likely to die from cancer, as I am.

        The history of the word, particularly over the last couple of hundred years demonstrates that the things asserted by the economists actually appear to be true: The highest standards overall exist in the parts of the world where generally greater economic freedom exists. Lower standards seem to attend in areas where Less economic freedom exists. Dogged insistence upon absolutes, is the refuge of idiots and madmen. The success I’m talking about is not an absolute, but a Relative matter. Which is relatively better/ Answer it appears economic freedom bolstered by the rule of law appears to be the better system.

      9. Anthony
        July 21, 2013 at 6:23 am

        Capitalism has outlived its usefulness.

        As many smarter than me have outlined, at some point the Government will have to pay people to stay home as there will be more people than jobs. Currently we have a mismatch between jobs available and the job skills of the labor force. This is why service sector type jobs are the only ones that most people qualify for. The other jobs available are for skills most people don’t have like welder, elevator tech. nuclear tech, programing, database/SAP and health care services.

        Most people unemployed either aren’t trained to do those jobs or are not interested in taking those jobs or they may have to relocate for those jobs and don’t want too.

        But at some point very soon, technology is going to push more people out of the workforce and then what?

        You can’t stop human growth IE children being born, so you’re going to have to allow people to contribute in other ways. If you understand how the free development of Linux software programs work, then you already know people will do useful thing sin society largely for free because people aren’t ultimately motivated and material items.

    2. jerrold
      July 16, 2013 at 11:43 am

      Your remark is preposterous. You would turn away from a technology that would improve millions of lives just to save some jobs? New jobs will emerge. Things evolve. Get with it, dope.

      1. Betsy
        July 18, 2013 at 4:14 am

        Exactly. Who is going to build these? Who is going to run these? Who is going to repair these? Who is going to sell tickets? Who is going to train people to do all these things? For every job lost there will be at least one created.

        1. Anthony
          July 21, 2013 at 6:25 am


      2. Kernighan
        July 19, 2013 at 8:41 am

        Also, history shows that existing technology is rarely eliminated, but normally supplemented by new paradigms of tech. Radio is still around even long after the advent of TV. TV will be around long after the internet is the main way video is exchanged. Roads and trucks and cars will still be around long after a main trunk system of high speed tubes has been created. My primary concen is only can we run such a thing in a world that thinks that you can run your electric power grid using windmills, and solar panels, when technically that is actually not possible. Physics suggests that the energy density of battery storage, alone will need to increase hundreds of times to even make that a consideration. Meanwhile the very energy dense Transuranics are still the best way to get electric power produced economically. India is looking at Thorium breeder reactors and having some real success. The USA needs to creat Thorium breeder reactors. They are vastly safer, than Uranium, are difficult to use to create weapons materials, produce almost no waste, and an added benefit is that we have a 2000 year supply of Thorium, which is presently not used because it is mixed in with Rare Earth deposits. Once turned into and industrial process, separating, and using the Thorium will open up a great, new Rare Earths boom in the USA, along with giving us the power we need for a system of transport like this.

        1. Anthony
          July 21, 2013 at 6:26 am


    3. Xtina
      July 16, 2013 at 11:50 am

      People aren’t going to give up their cars for this. Easier/faster/cheaper commuting across the country?! Yes please! It’s ludicrous to not see this as a wonderful possibility. I get playing the devil’s advocate, but hanging onto archaic technology in the name of “the economy” is simplistic and short-sighted.

      1. Tonio
        July 16, 2013 at 1:56 pm

        Actually I don’t think we are arguing that people necessarily give up, just choose to use a certain system more often than the other. Granted the newer system necessarily serve their needs accordingly, then yes, I do think millions of people would go a different route. Also worrying about job loss sounds like laziness to me. We should look forward to find ways these peoples skills can be developed in another way if that means funding changes, then we start projecting what those steps would look like instead of staying archaic because of discomfort with potentialities. Doing something progressive should be a thought out process, shooting things down is not helpful.

        1. Chris Mass
          July 16, 2013 at 2:03 pm

          Actually, shooting things down is helpful and is what drives us towards progress… If things weren’t shot down, then we might never be able to shoot things up… ha. You muskrat of a mother loving whale dude- skunk bag fapper!!! Think THAT one out.

      2. Linda Spence
        July 16, 2013 at 5:51 pm

        We’re talking long distances. people will still use their vehicles every day. Imagine how much pollution this would avoid. Imagine how this could open up people to good playing jobs in states where there are more opportunities without having to uproot your family. There are so many positives in something like this.

    4. Johnny
      July 16, 2013 at 12:01 pm

      That post is exactly what is wrong with this country. A better way to travel and you immediately state how will this make (me)us money. Well there will be jobs for those who maintain this train. To build this train. We can rely less on outside sources making money stay in the US. I may be a nut, but I’m finding it hard to validate your points.

    5. Max
      July 16, 2013 at 12:02 pm

      What a stupid way to look at the future. The future will not look like the 1950s dude….

    6. videoTHL
      July 16, 2013 at 12:10 pm

      How many people need to travel from those particular points? A hundred thousand, maybe? How many people still need to travel 100 miles from points not found along that line? Pretty much all of America. Auto workers will still have jobs.

    7. Victor ver.2.0
      July 16, 2013 at 12:13 pm

      Sooo you’re saying jobs will not be created for maintaining the hyperloop system? No services at all will be made? Just jobs will be lost, and that’s that? When computers and technology advanced, weren’t jobs lost? But then again, weren’t jobs also made? Saying not to provide a better means of transport for people because of “the economy” is a pretty baseless thing to say. What about firms? They could transport their goods much more cheaply and quickly, thereby lowering cost and providing a larger profit, a larger profit will allow them to expand, expansion will involve more people being employed. There are both costs and advantages to everything. Just sayin

    8. Joe Cogan
      July 16, 2013 at 12:15 pm

      Victor, this is called “creative destruction”, and it happens all the time, in every industry. Think of Email and its effect on the Post Office, or tablets and smartphones, and their effect on the PC industry, for just two recent examples. The affected industries need to adapt to survive. In the case of auto companies, it probably wouldn’t be all that difficult for them to retool their factories and retrain their workers to make, assemble, and maintain hyperloop technology when it becomes viable.

    9. Abra
      July 16, 2013 at 12:17 pm

      This right here is why the human race is progressing at a snails pace. Several groundbreaking creations like this are possible, but the human race is too afraid of job loss and money to actually take the next step in advancing our race. If things like this were to come into being, even more creations would come after for several different categories and new jobs would be found. We’re holding ourselves back because we’re afraid that progressing means losing what we’ve got now – nobody actually stops to think “Hey, it’d make life better – and then new possibilities and jobs would exist too”. With speeds like that – a person could live in California, and work in New York City. It would expand the places people could work without actually uprooting.

    10. Gako
      July 16, 2013 at 12:20 pm

      Why not do some actual research into this matter before you pointlessly hypothesize? If the economy was really about reciprocity as you claim, then how come in the US 1% of the population holds a majority of the wealth. You clearly know nothing about both scientific and economic progress. The only person this stuff isn’t clear to is ignorant old you. Go read a book, or even wikipedia for that matter.

    11. Sean
      July 16, 2013 at 12:27 pm

      Two points.
      Using your logic, the invention of lightbulbs was unproductive. All the people who worked in capturing whale for oil, making candles, refining kerosene, etc. went out of business due to lightbulbs. Are we better off with candles and lamps instead of lightbulbs in terms of “economic reciprocity?” No. Many technology enriches human race even if it will bring an end to some industry.

      This invention will not replace cars. Does this bullet train to every single household in the US? Can you take your kids to school on this train? The only industry this will affect is the airlines and maybe Amtrak. You just made up a fake point to take down the whole idea.

    12. Jeff Delhaye
      July 16, 2013 at 12:32 pm

      …and if man were meant to fly, he would have wings? Time for you to wake up, and join the 20th century, you are only about 114 years too late…

      1. WestCoaster
        July 16, 2013 at 3:44 pm

        You need to wake up mtoo. We are in the 21st century and have been for the past 12.5 years now.

    13. Tmo
      July 16, 2013 at 12:41 pm

      This is technological advancement. ATMs are everywhere and has cost the jobs of every change person in a casino. They have reduced the amount of bank tellers needed. They have made check cashing and withdrawals simple. Have you ever used one? Are you against smart phones and cell phones? There is no use for a phone operator to look up phone numbers or to connect you to a business anymore. But the flip side is that these advancements have created jobs. Who do you think will build this transportation system and operate it? Who will maintain and service it? And does it mean that people won’t drive? Of course not. If I need to get down the street to work or the store or to a friend’s house, I sure am going to drive. And most people will still drive. To get to another city, yes, I would use this. So if anything, we may experience a loss of jobs in airlines. And I would venture to guess that those airline employees could be traded for people working at hyperloop stations.

    14. Jeff
      July 16, 2013 at 12:42 pm

      You’re not gonna take this thing to the corner store. Its a replacement for air travel if anything. Its MUCH better for the environment, probably safer, more comfortable, and faster. This isn’t going to put the car out of commission. Its not a subway that will go all around town, its a long distance rapid transit system.

    15. The_L
      July 16, 2013 at 12:50 pm

      Um, what about all of the jobs that would be created in the construction, maintenance, and customer-service areas of having a totally new railway system? To say nothing of the beneficial effects on the environment, and the decrease in the number of annoying traffic jams.

      Plus, just imagine being able to relax for half an hour, and then be on the opposite coast of the US! Europe and Japan have this tech already, and it’s about time we got in on it as well. We’re falling behind!

    16. Jon
      July 16, 2013 at 12:51 pm

      If you want jobs then give these workers spoons instead of shovels

    17. DA
      July 16, 2013 at 1:23 pm

      This is the dumbest thing I have read all day. Its like someone hit you across the face with a macroecon textbook and then you typed the words that flashed in front of your face before contact.

    18. Brenda
      July 16, 2013 at 1:35 pm

      Your statement is complete nonsense. An idea or product that serves the needs of the people will succeed regardless of whatever wealth it creates, or product(s) it replaces. Contrary to what the equally uninformed responder above said, this is the beauty of capitalism. Unlike a controlled system, where someone can pull the plug on something that eliminates jobs or industries, capitalism is based entirely on the will of the people. If they want high-speed tube travel, once it becomes scientifically feasible, they’ll get it.

    19. Chuck Norris
      July 16, 2013 at 1:47 pm

      This comment makes me want to vomit. . It’s ok let’s not innovate in order to save automakers, lol. Reminds me of Taggard Transcontinental. Free market capitalism is the best path to prosperity son.

    20. vivman
      July 16, 2013 at 1:55 pm

      Uh, well.. not sure how a six passenger capsule built for space travel is going to endanger investment in road travel. An investment of this magnitude will be priced well outside the means of 99% of travelers; and likely for decades.

    21. Thom
      July 16, 2013 at 2:11 pm

      Just like the train destroyed the horse and buggy industry and online news has begun to hurt newspapers. Progress is progress and people need to realise that if jobs are removed then they will always be created as well. I say lets embrace the future.

    22. Julian
      July 16, 2013 at 2:18 pm

      So you’re saying that disrupting an inferior system would cost jobs? Using that logic, we should have stayed with telephone switchboards because they used human operators, horse-drawn carriages because they employed horse drivers, and brick streets because they required brick layers. You get my point. The truth is that there is always some human cost to progress, but the idea is that progress and innovation ultimately benefits the greater good – both economically and otherwise. You only need to look at the Internet and other inventions of the 20th century to see how they’ve improved humankind.

    23. Miriam
      July 16, 2013 at 2:23 pm

      I disagree with you. This is a means of travel that would replace an airplane. One wouldn’t hop on a 4,000 mile per hour train to get to the grocery store and run errands in the city one lives. The need for cars, trucks and highways would not be eradicated. Not to mention, some people just prefer to drive places. However, it is a fact of life that fuel is not a consistant replenishing resource so at some point (aside from the damage we have already caused to the earth) we will need to replace it with more efficient sources. Don’t worry about jobs ๐Ÿ™‚ where some are removed, others are created. I doubt this huge project would build and run itself.

    24. Steven
      July 16, 2013 at 2:26 pm

      This is incredibly silly, Luddite-level thinking. Autoworkers would do something else. Just as industrial farms made many farm skills obsolete, those people just go into an emerging technology. It may take a decade to realize the benefits, but new technologies only expand opportunity, they never eliminate it. Agrarian societies made nomadic lifestyles obsolete, which allowed people to become artists and craftsman and architects. So it goes.

    25. DMW
      July 16, 2013 at 2:27 pm

      With technology developing at the current clip, we don’t need people to keep everything running anymore. Even now, automation takes over many of the traditional jobs and this is happening in more fields than we care to notice (eg: doctors, teachers, lawyers) The future is now. โ€œThe illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn. โ€
      โ€• Alvin Toffler

    26. Big T
      July 16, 2013 at 2:34 pm

      I don’t mind having the most innovative technological transportation that can move people around quicker and faster than now. In terms of economic impact, I don’t think it will impact much because the world is constantly changing and we need to have this kind of innovative technology to be a leader in this world. We can forget about the existing transportation jobs, it is a small portion of it. We need to think out of the box and be innovative of the modern technology and we should take advantage of what we can do to make our country better as a leader of all nations.

    27. Japhy
      July 16, 2013 at 2:39 pm

      We’ve totally seen how greater connectivity has been a job-killer. The Internet, which allowed us to communicate faster has done nothing but kill the jobs of the postal service, and for what? Some bloggers and a few salaries in Silicon Valley!

      Think of the automobile, which managed not only to kill the once great railroad industry, but also the horse and buggy business!

      Or consider the medical field: If it weren’t for the invention of penicillin, the Bloodletters Guild and the Apothecary Association would yet be thriving!

    28. Mike
      July 16, 2013 at 2:41 pm

      Are you kidding me? how would this OBLITERATE the need for cars? Who commutes between LA and NYC by car? If anything it would just cut back airfare between New York and LA>

    29. traveler
      July 16, 2013 at 2:44 pm

      …said every whale oil harvester to Thomas Edison. If you’re not being sarcastic, you’ve been brainwashed.

    30. Christina
      July 16, 2013 at 3:16 pm

      This is the stupidest argument I’ve ever heard. Did the possibility of airplanes being able to take us from LA to NY eliminate the need for vehicles? No. This is no different. People would still need their cars to get to the grocery store, work, school, etc. People would also still need mass transit systems like metrolink and subways as well because we still need commuter transit from the suburbs into downtown LA. And you can’t think of how this could translate to a better economy? Um how about more and easier tourism? What about all of the business between LA and NYC?? This is honestly the dumbest argument I’ve ever read in my life.

    31. What
      July 16, 2013 at 3:16 pm

      Then people find new jobs that are relevant to society? This is like complaining that cellphones put the telegram industry out of business or that Blu Ray/DVD made VCRs obsolete. Companies need to learn to adapt or fall by the wayside.

    32. 12yearoldfag
      July 16, 2013 at 3:17 pm

      and thanks to idiots we still have cars running on exploding fossil fuel. that’s probably also to “save jobs”. and medical system that doesn’t do shit but robs you blind. “to save jobs”. and chemical industry that took over medicine and agriculture to poison everyone and make them sick so that they take more poisonous pills. all of this is probably to save those very helpful and beneficial jobs. actually if you had a brain and historical perspective and ability to do simple math, you’d refrain from dumb idiotic comments like this just because you had a random thought appear in your otherwise empty brain and decided it sounded brilliant.

    33. demode
      July 16, 2013 at 3:17 pm

      People would still need cars. This would be to travel far distances. It wouldn’t replace driving in towns and cities.

    34. rocthemoc
      July 16, 2013 at 3:39 pm

      Yes it will affect the auto industry and the jobs they provide, but it will not get rid of it. I’m sure the same was said about the airplane yet here we are still driving all over the country. This Hypertube seems like it’ll be a straight shot type of transportation as where automobiles allow absolute freedom. It will not destroy the auto industry. Not to mention, I am sure this new system will provide plenty of more jobs. THE MAIN BENEFICIAL factor of this will be reduction in pollutants, which I’m sorry is more important than a few jobs being laid off. It is this kind of drastic change to the way we use our natural resources that NEEDS to happen and the auto industry is not moving fast enough. A few jobs is not worth the history of our civilization.

    35. Me
      July 16, 2013 at 4:15 pm

      With speeds this fast, the track would have to long, so I still think people would need cars to get to and from the hyperloop station to home or their final destination. So cars and those jobs wouldn’t become obsolete.

    36. CZ3RO
      July 16, 2013 at 4:18 pm

      “With these new-fangled automatic carriages who will buy my horse feed?! I’m ruined!”

    37. Quinnrasta
      July 16, 2013 at 4:26 pm

      We should ban the forklifts, 18 wheelers, computer software, grocery stores items, automated answering services, ATMs etc.. I guess, in order to promote more jobs. That logic is a Keynesian fallacy. IMO

    38. cs
      July 16, 2013 at 4:46 pm

      The person envisioning the automobile clearly does not understand what economic development is. This system would obviate the product of millions of horses and carriages and significantly reduce the need for stables, feed lots, and watering troughs. This would mean the loss of millions of jobs. The economy is about reciprocity; people doing things for one another to get things they need in the process. What would all those millions of stable workers, horsewhip manufacturers, and roadway manure cleaners do? How could this technology lead to any other industries to fill the void of loss of existing transportation jobs? The greater connectivity of distant locations could also lead to a loss in jobs as companies merge and cover greater geographic areas leading to redundant employees and layoffs.
      It may be great for humanity to have this kind of connectivity, but it’s not clear how this would translate to a better economy or wealth creation for the average person. It won’t.

    39. tyler
      July 16, 2013 at 5:27 pm

      that’s why we need a basic income guarantee for everyone so they can have a choice in what they do with their lives instead of being tethered to antiquated, inefficient systems simply to “earn” money.

    40. llavoy
      July 16, 2013 at 5:39 pm

      Victor, are cars and trains really that mutually exclusive? when was the last time you drove from New York to LA? I’m fairly certain nothing like this is getting built between my house and my job anytime soon

    41. Simon Wentworth
      July 16, 2013 at 5:42 pm

      I agree that it probably wouldn’t be right for a LA to NYC route, but for intercontinental routes like NY to London or LA to Tokyo for example, I reckon it’ll make sense.

    42. Alex
      July 16, 2013 at 5:57 pm

      It’s so horrible. Think of what happened to the horse industry after the combustible engine came on the scene. Our economy was ruined, and will never be the same. I thoroughly enjoy 5-6 hour flights across the country – said no one ever.

    43. Connor
      July 16, 2013 at 6:02 pm

      As the economy is advancing jobs are moving away from industrial and manufacturing and more into service fields. As a stage three three country of economic transition model The United states is already f=more advanced than the majority of other countries in the world and the next generation of workers isnt being trained for skilled or unskilled labor but to work at computers or as leaders. By the time this project would be finished most of the manufacturing jobs that youre speaking of will be obsolete and be replaced by something else before then. If not that, the people working these jobs now are going to retire.

    44. Charles
      July 16, 2013 at 6:07 pm

      This seems like a long distance means of transportation, not a means for going across town to the grocery store. People would still need cars and roads and gas stations, etc.

    45. Jen dawson
      July 16, 2013 at 6:13 pm

      Victor – sadly enough you likely don’t have to worry as economic development is now synonymous with profit and not progress. Those workers will most likely perish like the rest of us for not eliminating dependence on unsustainable (but profitable!) means of transportation, etc. but, on a good note they will die employed and having earned a pension.

    46. Philippe David
      July 16, 2013 at 6:31 pm

      Clearly you have a lot to learn about economic development because if we had been following that reasoning for the past two centuries, we would still be driving horses and buggies and ligthing our streets with gas lanterns for fear of poutting the poor guys who lit them every night out of a job.

      As it happens, every new innovative advancement usually creates more jobs than it destroys. It’s a process called creative destruction. Look it up!

      For the record, if this allows you to travel from NY to LA in less than an hour and can also go trans-continental, air and ocean travel may well become a thing of the past way before the automobile, which is more flexible over short distances. It may also be the solution to reduce fossil fuel dependency to nearly nil.

    47. Joe Lonsdale Sr.
      July 16, 2013 at 6:33 pm

      This comment about destroying jobs is about as far off base as one can get. If you want jobs outlaw agricultural equipment! 200 years ago 75%+ of Americans worked on family farms growing the food we all eat. Every advancement destroys jobs. People find other ways to contribute. Look at all the operator jobs that were destroyed by direct dial. Do you want to outlaw direct dial? Do you want to outlaw EZ pass and have everyone stop and pay a toll?

      Progress means higher living standards and better lives.

    48. tony
      July 16, 2013 at 6:33 pm

      Lol this guys sounds like what I imagine the horse and buggy makers said about cars. Fucking moron.

    49. Sam
      July 16, 2013 at 6:34 pm

      That’s called a broken window fallacy. Those jobs will be created in other places due to the economic development created by it.
      That’s like saying “oh no! this email service will kill all the post office jobs!” when really, since we can send messages and data faster, many new jobs are created.

      That’s bad economics. If you think stifling technologal advance will make the economy better, consider moving to a third world country.

    50. Craigers61
      July 16, 2013 at 6:38 pm

      Fear in the mornin, fear in the evenin fear at super time. Malthusian fears are always bunk. Agriculture went from 47% of the population in 1947 to 2% today, where is your 46% unemployment? Saving people money means that they will spend it on other goods and services, those other goods and services then employ those let loose from the jobs lost due to technological development. The top jobs in 2012 didnโ€™t even exist in 2000. Give up the Neanderthal ninny nonsense~!

    51. hawks5999
      July 16, 2013 at 7:21 pm

      obvious troll is obvious

    52. Arnold Drenth
      July 16, 2013 at 9:10 pm

      This is like saying “Don’t electrify – think of all the candle-makers!”

    53. greg
      July 16, 2013 at 10:38 pm

      I don’t think you know how economics works. You are thinking of the broken window fallacy. Also with your argument, you mine as well say “we should have never invented cars because horse shoe makers would be out of a job”

    54. stephen
      July 16, 2013 at 11:48 pm

      Instead of creating jobs, how about making life more affordable?

    55. Aaron
      July 16, 2013 at 11:57 pm


      You need to brush up on your understanding of Economics and how wealth is created and how economies grow. Your argument obviously has been proven wrong by all of history and all of progress. The purpose of capital investment is always to make improvements so that things do become easier and better. The freeing up of time and resources in one sector will allow for other innovations and industries to open up. Otherwise, we’d all still be traveling on horses.

    56. AshFos
      July 17, 2013 at 12:47 am

      Doesn’t it seem funny that this was thought up by a guy who founded a viable company producing electric vehicles? Think about it. An electric car can only take you, say 200 miles. If you could hop in your electric car and go to any city you want via your hyperloop hub in your nearest city……what would be the need for the the combustion engine vehicle? This technology would faze out the need for the combustion engine passenger vehicle for long drives, paving the way for those vehicles to be replaced by the electric vehicle in the near future. Cars will be used to only travel between close cities, and the long distance stuff is left up to the green hyperloop. This can jump start a true green revolution by taking millions of dirty combustion engines off the road for travel greater than 200 miles. This can usher in an era of new job growth to replace the old. It’s called progress, and it is the sort of thing only capitalism can do.

    57. Brent
      July 17, 2013 at 5:34 am

      Economic “development”.

    58. Steve F
      July 17, 2013 at 5:43 am

      The person envisioning this ABSOLUTELY understands economic development. It’s extremely short-sighted to look at a technological improvement as simply the loss of a few jobs. Sure, there will be jobs lost, but so too there will be jobs gained. The entire economy is more efficient when transportation improves and travel times decrease. This amounts to more business getting done in less time, with less expense needed. In turn, this frees up individuals to spend money and barter with one another in different ways, leading to more demand for employment in other industries and fields.

      On a macro level, this is very similar to what computer software has done for all businesses of today’s age. Imagine a business like Amazon — in the past, it could have never grown so large because coordinating logistics would be next to impossible at that level without software. The same goes for companies like UPS and FedEx, who rely on complex mathematical algorithms implemented in software to very purposefully eliminate the need to do such redundant work manually. The end result is that computers handle the work of thousands of individuals, streamlining efficiency and reducing the cost and timeline for the end user. This stimulates more trade and business in the economy at a macro level in relation to the business and improves the marketplace.

      In the very, very short run, technological advances affect a minority of individuals in specific industries. But all of us need to realize that at any time, we may be forced to acquire new skills to stay relevant in the job force. That’s just life, and whether or not it’s fair is irrelevant. In the long run, and even in the “middle run” so to speak, these types of economic and technological improvements make ALL of us better off by raising our standard of living.

      Have you ever watched a movie set hundreds of years ago and thought, man, I don’t know how I could have ever survived back then without TV, internet, phones, etc.? Even the richest king didn’t have the conveniences that the poorest man has today, and it’s the result of technological and economic improvements like this that create economies of scale and reduce waste. The less work and energy that is required to accomplish a particular task, the more work and energy can be put into novel ideas to grow the economy as a whole. If our ancestors complained that their horse and buggy mail delivery boys were going to “lose their jobs” as a result of technological advances that have led to the modern day standard for postage and parcel delivery, instead of FedEx overnight we’d still be using the Pony Express. Ridiculous!

    59. Kevin
      July 17, 2013 at 9:53 am

      Under that logic, the automobile should never have been developed because it put the horse and buggy system out of business. Besides, EVERYONE won’t be riding this new rail system, there is still a strong need for personal vehicles. Only, if it’s up to the free market, they will be driving themselves- flying, even.

    60. Kevin Havre
      July 17, 2013 at 2:09 pm

      Just as trains replaced wagons and planes replace trains; this would be another engine for the economy. Jobs building the system and then serving the travelers.

    61. Alteredstory
      July 17, 2013 at 3:41 pm

      Arguing that progress should be halted because of the jobs it will remove is absurd. It’s like arguing that we shouldn’t use cars because it will put wainwrights out of business, or we shouldn’t use phones because it puts telegraph operators out of business.

      It’s possibly the worst possible argument you could make.

    62. Heath
      July 17, 2013 at 3:44 pm

      Saying that this system would eliminate the need for cars and roads is like saying that airplanes have taken over the automobile industry. Any jobs it takes from the auto industry will be recreated with this system. People will still need to get around, and if they do it by car, train, airplane, or ETT, there will be need for jobs there.

    63. Jonathan
      July 17, 2013 at 5:11 pm

      Think of all the people that lost their jobs from looking after horses etc after cars were introduced, jobs will always be lost, but new unexpected ones will be created, it’s just life.

    64. Chris
      July 17, 2013 at 5:51 pm

      This has got to be the least supported or thought-out criticism I’ve ever read. To say we shouldn’t build something so revolutionary because its efficiency will cost us jobs is ludicrous. First off, do you have any idea how many jobs this transport system will CREATE ? Me neither, but I can guess it will be a lot – since it’s a mutiibillion dollar intracontinental the project. And upkeep ? Not only jobs, but quality, high-skilled jobs – engineers, architects, mechanics, designers, programmers, etc. Also, roads will always need construction and maintenance because this doesn’t remove the need for everyday cars. What about those that will still drive because, oh I don’t know, we don’t need to travel from NYC to LA every single day ? I’m not even going to echo the other responses to this post about the problems with capitalism because they’re well thought out and speak for themselves.

    65. Bob Dylan
      July 17, 2013 at 9:58 pm

      Are you serious?

      New technology always increases prosperity.

      Lets take the car, for example. Before the car, we used horses, and then cars came and displaced all the groomsmen, equine maintenance personnel, poop-scoopers, carriage drivers, horse doctors, horse salesmen, etc, etc, etc.

      Oh wait, no we didn’t, we facilitated the single greatest contributor to global prosperity ever: the car (trucks included).

      This situation is the same: millions of jobs will be lost, and millions will be gained in another sector (in this case, rail systems).

      But furthermore, the system won’t even replace cars, only airplanes (because the initial cost is so high it only makes sense if it facilitates greater than mach 1 speeds, meaning it would be impractical to stop more frequently than, lets say, every 1000 miles or so).

    66. Millie
      July 18, 2013 at 1:27 am

      You should really read Atlas Shrugged. Excuses should not be made for Innovation. This project would create the possibility for people to live in more rural parts of the country and still be able to commute to work. This would allow us to spread people out across the country, and eliminate some of the stress on certain areas, such as the Suburbs of NYC and other urban areas. It would also allow for greater flexibility within relationships. You could have a successful couple with one partner working in LA and one in NYC, without the stress of having to choose who would give up their job. Honestly, the possibilities are endless with this new technology. Saying that people might lose their jobs, because of this, may be true, but it should not determine whether or not to implement this new technology.

    67. Dsquared
      July 18, 2013 at 9:13 am

      Do any of you people even know how to define Capitalism? The only remote free markets exist in the commodities markets. And to “Ben’s” point, I’m sure people said the exact same thing when the transcontinental railroad was being built. No more need for horses and all the ancillary industries that supported such travel. I’m sure people thought the same thing about the rail industry when the car was invented. I think you can see where I’m going with this. People stand in the way of progress because they’re afraid they won’t be able to evolve at the same rate as everybody around them. Get with the program.

    68. Oscar
      July 18, 2013 at 12:21 pm

      By your logic, we need to quickly bring back the horse and buggy, coal-fired boilers, and the Pony Express. I’ll be happy to discuss it with you via telegram.

    69. Don
      July 18, 2013 at 1:35 pm

      There will still be a need for cars and roads. No one will be going to the store, picking up their kids or going shopping in a 4000 MPH vehicle.

    70. Aaron
      July 18, 2013 at 2:57 pm

      This creates new jobs….. new people to build the system, new people to build the cars, new people to build the stations, new people to staff them….etc. Cars are not going to go away any time soon, planes are not going to go away any time soon, all those jobs will still be there – but this creates way more jobs than it takes away.

    71. Mike F
      July 18, 2013 at 3:54 pm

      Think of it like this, Why take this interloper to the store about 6 miles down the road, it wouldn’t eliminate anything, but maybe the use of the train and the aeroplane in USA…….We will still roads to just get the next town, and things like that, It wouldnt be an end all at all.

    72. chris
      July 18, 2013 at 4:21 pm

      Are you kidding? Do you see what the peoples perceived dependency on crude oil is doing throughout not just the nation but the entire world? There was a time when every single citizen in this nation did NOT have a car, and people made due back in those days. Those millions of auto workers are manufacturing vehicles, which people purchase, and continuously fill with horribly overpriced gasoline on a daily basis, feeding billions of dollars into rich oil tycoons pockets. Not to mention the fact that we are destroying the planet at the same time. Something needs to change.

    73. FZ
      July 18, 2013 at 5:26 pm

      Similar thoughts like your had people when they create the microchips or industrial revolutions, computer or cinemas instead of theaters… Keep it up Victor!

    74. Santos
      July 18, 2013 at 6:36 pm

      Yes, kind of like how kerosene made whale hunters obsolete.

    75. N.E
      July 18, 2013 at 7:04 pm

      There is No such thing as “economy” in a country who is driven by capitalism.

    76. Economics is a Science
      July 18, 2013 at 7:16 pm

      Sorry to say, it sounds like you don’t understand economic development. Though we might be eliminating certain areas of the economy, we create new forms of commerce by virtue of getting things from one point to another in a fraction of the time. new industries would form. your argument would suggest that the internet shouldn’t be built because suddenly we wont’ have need for the postal service, or magazines… guess what, the internet has created an entire new business while simultaneously crushing others…. that’s economic development

    77. Kelly
      July 18, 2013 at 7:55 pm

      First of all, I don’t agree. Tickets on this system would be expensive (more expensive than air travel, presumably, since it would be faster), and it would only have a few connecting points – there’s no “local” version of this train. Driving across the country is hardly the principal use-case for cars! Any trip that this would be a replacement for is more likely to be a plane trip than a car trip. And the domestic airline industry hasn’t made cars irrelevant, so why would this? People use cars mostly for traveling within their state or their local area, this wouldn’t negate that need.

      But secondly, this argument has been made against all types of technological progress. Things become outdated at some point, jobs supporting outdated technologies begin to disappear, and people adjust. Would you say people shouldn’t have used computers, because it put typewriter repair people out of their jobs? There are tons more examples of this:

      And lastly, should we really have cars and interstates forever? It’s worth seeing the big picture here, including the fact that a more energy-efficient and cleaner alternative to gasoline-fueled cars is going to be a necessity if humans want to be on the planet for longer than another hundred years.

    78. Adqkid
      July 18, 2013 at 8:10 pm

      First, there isn’t “millions” of auto workers. Second, just because it’s built doesn’t mean people will just stop using cars, trucks and roads and airlines. The system will only be able to carry so many people and already airlines and trains get over booked. On a global scale the movement of goods and people would be easier and cheaper, not to mention the manpower it’s going to take to maintain the system. Second, with a project so big, it’s going to take years to build and how many hundreds or thousands of people and contractors to maintain it. It could however make shipping cheaper which could spread the savings to the consumer. I say could because the whole thing and it’s consequences are hypothetical. Nobody really knows what is going to happen or how. The real question is, how much is it going to cost to build and maintain.

    79. Thomasi
      July 18, 2013 at 8:27 pm

      Also, it doesn’t make much sense to travel at 4,000 miles per hour to go to the supermarket. People will still want their cars for short- and medium-distance travel. This is not going to replace automobiles (or bicycles) but rather it updates the concept of the railroad to provide an alternative to cars for long-distance trips.

    80. mike jones
      July 18, 2013 at 8:40 pm

      This comment is the most naive and simpleton way to look at progress. Victor you should simply walk to work every day.

    81. Bob Bigglesbottom
      July 18, 2013 at 9:18 pm

      One step at a time, buddy. It’s not like the world would be completely dependent on this. That would probably take decades. There will still be trains, planes, and automobiles.

    82. Michael
      July 19, 2013 at 12:16 am

      Seriously you make me ashamed to be an American and a human being. Go find a cave and a loin cloth and die at 30.

    83. VictorscommentitsobadbadIstartedthisaccount
      July 19, 2013 at 1:50 am

      Victor’s a clown.

    84. Julie
      July 19, 2013 at 5:39 am

      I’m sure people said the same thing about airplanes. We need a system that is adaptive to change. Change is the natural constant in life, and in survival. Think about the price reduction in other areas, like produce when the amount of time to have things transported is reduced. Where one door closes, another opens.

    85. Kevin
      July 19, 2013 at 8:50 am

      I wonder if they said the same thing about coach drivers and wheel writes when the car was invented. Or maybe about the train when the airplane was invented. Technologies become obsolete, it’s a fact. People need to be industrious and move on, not hold progress hostage because they and their unions have worked too hard bankrupting an entire city to look for new work.

      By the way, your argument in unfounded. It’s not like people would take the HyperLoop to get groceries, they’d take it over thousands of miles. Cars and mass transit would still be necessary.

    86. M
      July 19, 2013 at 8:54 am

      Are you serious? This system isn’t meant to have a tube in every neighborhood in all the many counties of the U.S. You’re still going to be using cars for local transport for a good many decades. In fact, I imagine there will be a great need for rental cars at each drop-off point because commuters at that distance surely aren’t going to be paying that extra charge to move their car over to their location.

    87. Bungo
      July 19, 2013 at 11:00 am

      Assinine comment in my opinion. Someone would need to maintain rail and create these trains. A massive undertaking that would take a major amount of metal and skilled workers.

      What about the children? People who are against progress because they don’t know all the answers…

    88. Tales6888
      July 19, 2013 at 11:37 am

      This system will obviously not decimate personal vehicles. There is very little application past long range travel so people are still going to want to have a car or truck. As was said in the video there is very little space for cargo so the tucking industry will defiantly hold up. And I don’t know how many people need a tube traveling at 350 MPH to take them to a grocery store. Needless to say the application of this invention will be moderate at best

    89. Ty
      July 19, 2013 at 12:53 pm

      The key to capitalism is adaptive advancement, which sometimes requires large-scale redistributions of resources. In the interest of self preservation, we can’t always keep thinking in the short-term.

      I’m not going to go too far into this, but clinging to inefficient and atiquated practices out of fear for the short-term consequences is the exact mindset that continues to stagnate the human advancement and innovation you speak of.

    90. RealTalk
      July 19, 2013 at 1:25 pm

      Yeah, because the world revolves around you, right?

      You either get with the times, educate yourself with new knowledge, skills or step the hell aside.

      While I do understand the integrity of hard work – what good is hard work if you aren’t willing to learn new things? Why do people expect to do same thing for the rest of their life?

    91. David
      July 19, 2013 at 2:36 pm

      Meh, technological advancements is indeed a double edged sword. Having tires or automobiles that rarely need fixing will result in a loss for jobs, any kind of robotics, will once again result in lost jobs. I honestly don’t see how we would be able to have things like this without it having some form of economical impact.

      Regardless, this would not make roads obsolete and almost no one would be losing their jobs. It would provide more jobs than take away..

    92. Marpa47
      July 19, 2013 at 2:58 pm

      Like the current state of roads, rails and bridges are being maintained? Money I already not being spent, jobs are already not filled and current infrastructure is already not being maintained. Are you saying that jobs in construction/maintenance/operation of such a technology don’t add up? I think you’re missing something.

    93. Adam
      July 19, 2013 at 3:52 pm

      What a great point… If only we could identify a large scale project that would require manual labour much like assembly and road construction that would possibly be created by the growth of a high speed tube system…

      Oh wait, people would have to build it… and the cars to go inside it… and then it would have to be monitored much like, oh let’s say a freeway system?

      It’s talk like this that holds back the western world. Without progress we become stagnant and fall into economic turmoil. Stop protecting people from development, people are innovative and will adapt

    94. Gene
      July 19, 2013 at 5:05 pm

      This type of transit system turning into a mass transit system will take decades. Your argument against it is the equivalent of arguing against alternative energy because eventually it will put the oil companies out of business. In the end, human need trumps profits. And in the end, if this does become a primary transit system, it will do so gradually, and many other jobs will be created which are lost to today’s transportation needs. One door closes, another one opens.. it’s the way of the world, and it’s always been so. I’m sure back in the day.. people argued against a highway system because it would put horse dealers out of business.

    95. Zeda F Ruhl
      July 19, 2013 at 7:08 pm

      I understand what you are saying, but think about what is currently happening with immigration. Our population is about to explode. There will still be roads to repair and may cars on them. We just need more jobs to produce revenue to pay for it all! I think it is a wonderful idea, just not sure who or how it is going to be paid for.

    96. Mark
      July 19, 2013 at 7:24 pm

      YEAH! Just like the automobile industry destroyed millions of blacksmithing jobs (every town had one to shod the horses) and the agricultural revolution destroyed millions of farming jobs! RETURN TO HUNTER-GATHERING FOR THE SAKE OF THE ECONOMY!!!

    97. Mike
      July 19, 2013 at 10:15 pm

      If this new fangled automobile works, horse stable hands all over will lose their jobs. How could those jobs ever be replaced by this new technology?
      ^thats what you sound like.

      A strong economy is about coming out with the next revolutionary technology first, then selling it to everyone else in the world. If this system is more efficient than cars, as in it costs us less as a country and makes us more as a country, then it will help the economy. And if it isn’t it will either take a niche role in the market or die out altogether.

    98. steve
      July 20, 2013 at 8:31 am

      I think you’re on to something here, Victor. Just think of all the blacksmiths who were thrown out of work when the automobile was invented. It was a disaster for the economy. And computers! They have rendered large portions of the population idle.

      People have expressed this fear about new technology since before the Luddites. Society ALWAYS benefits when we discover something new about science.

    99. Forest
      July 20, 2013 at 3:06 pm

      It is clear by your statement that, you have no understanding of what is really going on in Americans once great auto industry. Notice I said once great. Thanks to the one percent, Romney and Obama. Many of those auto workers are not employed. Because more than fifty percent of GMs workers have been outsourced to China. Even Saturn has stopped building cars in America. So many of those put out of work. Would be given jobs in this new industry. It would be a boon to Americas economy because trillions could be put into building these all over the USA. The infrastructure would get a much needed boost. It would not put anyone out of a job. if anything would help create many more jobs.

    100. Alexey Karpov
      July 20, 2013 at 8:23 pm

      Dear Victor,

      It seems that you are somewhat falling into one of the classic economic fallacies that can be regrouped under the “Parable of the Broken Window”. Feel free to review the following Wikipedia article to get a better sense of what I’m talking about:

      In short, the existence of such a highly sophisticated transport system would indeed reduce the amount of workforce and business involved in car manufacturing/road maintenance, plane manufacturing/airlines and other forms of inferior transportation. And indeed, many people, ask you acutely note, involved in the upholding of such forms of transportation will “lose their jobs”.

      However, instead of working on obsolete forms of transportation, these skilled workers will be, eventually (and probably rather quickly) re-absorbed in the economy. In turn, where it took the yearly work of, for instance, 100 people, to get 100,000 people from NY to LA, it would now take 10. The other 90, having lost their jobs because of the methods of transport they were involved with becoming obsolete, would eventually be hired in other (similar or not) sectors of the economy.

      For instance, if it took 100 people to get 100,000 people from NY to LA, and it would subsequently take 10, and the remaining 90 would start baking 10 loafs of bread each, the overall economy would shift from 100 people having the result of faring 100,000 people across the States to 100 people faring 100,000 people across the States AND baking 900 loafs of bread. The country will, overall, be 900 hypothetical loafs of bread richer.

      Let’s not forget that any sort of progress or optimization of resources results in the professional relocation of hundreds of thousands of people. By your logic, everyone should still have been busy building ships instead of switching to planes.

      Furthermore, the uniquely quick connection (by global standards) or megapolises such as LA and NY will boost the economy in itself; the sheer increase in the speed and rate at which business could be done will result in more business being done.


      A, Karpov

    101. JW
      July 20, 2013 at 8:51 pm

      Stop Fucking. We have too many people, not too few jobs or too little food or even too little space…just way too many people. And for you to think that the auto industry is the real issue indicates you should be the first out of the gene pool.

    102. Hans
      July 21, 2013 at 12:30 am

      I am in favor of this. Let’s leave our natural resources where they are, not exploit them till they’re gone with more automobiles, an save our environment from flourocarbons. Also, the automobile industry may perish, companies may merge, there will be layoffs, but the economy will renew itself. No more need to have wars in the middle east for oil exploits.

    103. J
      July 22, 2013 at 2:05 am

      are you off your rocker?!

    104. Justus
      July 30, 2013 at 9:17 am

      Yeah, let’s halt progression so that people don’t have to find a way to thrive in an advanced civilization. Excellent!

    105. Charles
      July 30, 2013 at 10:32 am

      “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” – George Bernard Shaw

    106. Andrew
      July 31, 2013 at 7:32 pm

      I think your being a little dramatic, Victor. First off, the economy thrives on innovation. Nothing creates new jobs more than a new product, service or idea. Second, to think that high-speed rail will make roads, trucks, become obsolete is ridiculous. We are talking about one lane of transit from LA to NYC carrying a maximum of 6 passengers at a time…. Lets be honest. And what about the thousands of jobs it would take to create and maintain this system? Also, this would increase travel and would allow me to dispose my money in a location I have never been thus boosting their local economy.

    107. tony smith
      July 31, 2013 at 8:35 pm

      Yeah – like the computer and ATMs eliminated bank tellers, telephone operators, journalists, publishers, photographers, receptionists, and tons of other jobs. Yet – you are typing on the web.

  2. Jm
    July 16, 2013 at 11:20 am

    Nope, won’t work. The reason airlines are successful is they take you, generally, where you want to go. How many people want to wind up at a train station in LA? And seeing the CA high speed will surpass 90 billion, the idea politico’s would allow it to close down that operation is farfetched indeed.

    1. Steve F
      July 17, 2013 at 5:47 am

      The reason Airlines are successful is because they get people where they need to go FASTER than any other mode of transportation. Seeing as how this proposal promises to decrease transportation time, it should be obvious that there would be a huge market for it. Besides, “winding up at a train station” is no different than winding up at an airport. They are both landing areas that are potentially not exactly next to where you’re trying to go.

  3. D.J. Gelner
    July 16, 2013 at 11:45 am

    You can’t win with some people! Though we’re going to have to deal with robots and technology “eating up” jobs eventually, this would obviously be huge for commerce of all sorts. To turn your point around, who would build and maintain the thousands of miles of track? Also, it’s unlikely you’d take a Hyperloop to the grocery store, or even around town. Cars and other forms of personal transport would still be very necessary. Not to mention that if you wanted to move freight through these things, you’d likely have to build a parallel system, meaning more construction and maintenance jobs on that.

    There might be other concerns with this project; often infrastructure construction costs end up being much higher than projected. However, “They took err jobs!” should NOT be one of them.

    Godspeed, Elon–this guy could end up being one of the most influential humans to walk the planet. The crazy thing is, he might just make it to Mars!

    1. Bungo
      July 19, 2013 at 11:03 am

      If an engineer can develop a system/robot that can do your job… a good trainer could train a monkey to do it.

      Welcome to a new sector, Mr. Robot Displaced!

  4. The_L
    July 16, 2013 at 12:52 pm

    It’s about bloody time we had super-fast trains in the US. Europe and Japan have had 300 mph mag-lev trains for over a decade now. I WANT MY TRAINS, please.

  5. BaZ
    July 16, 2013 at 1:13 pm

    This is what I am talking about, if we had this all setup across the globe I could hop in and get to my family in a few hours versus flying half a day around the world to reach Europe. And I am sure this technology will jump start new types of cars that travel at higher speeds and possibly buy themselves. So there will definitely be new jobs and other things that would be very useful to our economy. Time to look into the bright future.

  6. Thomas Vander Stichele
    July 16, 2013 at 1:17 pm

    Your last sentence should probably read New York to LA – the body of the article says that will take under an hour, and SF to LA in mere minutes.

    1. nick
      July 16, 2013 at 3:50 pm

      last sentence is talking about the high speed rail system currently in development.. not the hyperloop

  7. Rick
    July 16, 2013 at 1:20 pm

    if this video were produced at a slightly higher standard than a jr. high school project, i might be on board.

  8. Kathryn
    July 16, 2013 at 1:23 pm

    I’m excited about the technology. What worries me is keeping the project and people using it safe. It’s sad, but in a post 9/11 world that was my first thought. ๐Ÿ™

    1. Gene
      July 16, 2013 at 4:42 pm

      Kathryn, the rest of the post-9-11 world will evolve into a bright future while you worry yourself sick in your underground bunker.

  9. Serge
    July 16, 2013 at 1:59 pm

    Thomas, that time is in reference to the high speed rail network, not the hyperloop time. Read it again ๐Ÿ™‚

    And Victor…go back to the stone age…thanks!

  10. Zach
    July 16, 2013 at 2:17 pm

    I don’t think this is meant to completely eliminate cars, buses, etc. I think that’s looking centuries into the future. The way I see it, this will happen as a method to traveling to major business and tourist hubs; at first it will cost extensively more to travel via this route, but eventually it could essentially eliminate the need for air travel eventually. I think that the business prospects of this are phenomenal. In the same way that the Transcontinental Railroad changed the landscape of the American economy and industrial process, so could this as well.

    More importantly, I think the presentation severely lacks when discuss the transportation of CARGO and GOODS. Imagine the speed by which someone could now send a package. No need to wait 3-5 business days to get your package, if you order it in the morning, it could be at your doorstep by the afternoon. This is one of those few scientific and engineering develops that is capable of vastly changing our world for the better and I hope we don’t let this opportunity go to waste.

  11. Eric
    July 16, 2013 at 2:20 pm

    This whole concept is totally ludicrous. 4000 mph is equivalent for Mach 5.25, which is 25% faster than any aircraft has ever flown including the SR-71

    At Mach 3 and higher you reach “hypersonic” speeds which induce thermal heating that would incinerate any standard metal unless you were in a complete vacuum. I would love to see a vacuum chamber the diameter and length of the United States! Running vacuum chambers usually requires incredibly large vacuum pumps that would take hours to decompress — so the train wouldnt be ready to go for a long time after the doors to the bullet train closes.

    Even if you were in a vacuum, it would take on the order of 20-30 minutes to reach speeds of 4000 mph (from energy and G-force application to passengers), and another 20-30 minutes to slow down, and a total of 116 Gigajoules of energy just in kinetic energy for a standard light rail. For a 1 hour trip, assuming 20% efficiency (which is very high), this requires 160 MegaWatts of electrical power for the 1-hr duration of the trip.

    Don’t get your hopes up. The physics just doesn’t work. It’s much more practical to jump from city to city on a rocket with a suborbital vehicle (and THIS can get you from place to place in an hour no problem).

    1. Tangentsreviews
      July 16, 2013 at 5:45 pm

      You actually decompress the entire tube and keep it decompressed at all times. You then have “airlocks” where the cargo cars and passenger cars are loaded… the air evacuated, and then opened into the main vacuum-maintained tube where they are launched and thus do not see heat buildup as a result of air friction. At the end of the trip, the “car” exits into another airlock which is sealed and then air is let back into the system.

    2. Brian
      July 16, 2013 at 5:53 pm

      The hypersonic speed consideration is pretty much a non-issue ii obviously they’re doing some kind of vacuum or air-at-speed thing. And if you had some kind of stage decompression, it wouldn’t need to take as long as you seem to be indicating.
      With respect to your time and energy numbers, I think you’re quite a bit off. To reach 4000 mph at 6 mph/s (a 10 second 0 to 60 time, not ridiculous) would take 11 minutes. Given that, it would take 5 GJ for something the weight of a car to accelerate to this speed (I think comparing a small pod to a light rail system is a little disingenuous). Then multiplying the 11 minutes by the 5 GJ, and using a still -extremely- conservative efficiency of 50% (are you kidding me? 20%? Some ICEs get better than that, and this is a frictionless MagLev system!) I get 15 MW. Musk has noted that most of this energy can also be recovered during braking, although even without that recovery the energy feasibility is in much better shape than you indicated.

    3. losc
      July 16, 2013 at 6:00 pm

      Do yoy honestly think no one considered those points when proposing this idea? just because you took one semester of physics in college doesnt make you qualified to speak intelligently on the topic. If its on the table, and has been proposed not only by the (brilliant) minds at spacex and by a world class physicist, clearly they know if and how it can be done.

      1. Charles
        July 17, 2013 at 3:16 am

        Just because it’s written and published online doesn’t mean it is feasible or that the inventors are credible. “In theory, this elevated tube system could be built for a tenth of the cost of high-speed rail and a quarter the cost of a freeway.” – I don’t think so. I have no proof but common sense tell me that Eric is correct. What about the cost of decompressing a tunnel from New York to Los Angeles or the energy required to magnetically levitate an object of that mass? Definitely not feasible in our generation.

    4. MGW
      July 16, 2013 at 6:19 pm

      Great response. Glad to see people on here working the numbers. Eric what are your number estimates for the rocket based proposal?

      Agree that an extreme vacuum seems intuitively difficult based on evacuation time and difficulty of getting pressure down. What are the reasonable tradeoffs of evacuation time and pressure, to air resistance in the tube?

      What if the speed were say 3000 MPH instead? Does the rocket based proposal benefit mostly from the rotation of the earth’s speed? would a lower train speed still be a big win?

      1. Bob
        July 17, 2013 at 10:27 pm

        I ran the numbers (3rd year physics undergraduate), and I can tell you it’s totally doable, and way, way, way more energy efficient than flying.

        In fact, once you build it, it barely uses any energy at all.

    5. Drea
      July 16, 2013 at 7:21 pm

      What he ^ said

  12. Josh
    July 16, 2013 at 2:24 pm

    So, Victor, you’re telling me that a hyperspeed rail system connecting major cities vast distances apart from one another is going to cause everyone to give up their cars? So, then, you’re saying you ONLY use your car for driving from New York to Los Angeles? Because, call me crazy, I’m pretty sure you’ll still use your car to drive to the grocery store or the beach. This system is not going to replace cars, it’s going to get you across the country faster, and I am relatively certain that you don’t do that in your car anyway. If anything, this will affect the airline industry, and GOOD. They need a kick in the pants.

  13. Matthew RIvas
    July 16, 2013 at 2:39 pm

    Is it me or am I the only one who feels like a 4,000 MPH ride would be scary?

    1. Tangentsreviews
      July 16, 2013 at 5:47 pm

      No scarier than strapping yourself into a rocket and launching yourself into orbit. ๐Ÿ™‚

      And really… it’s probably safer than getting into an aircraft which may be poorly maintained and into an increasingly-crowded sky where you could die from collision, bird strike, or any other mishaps.

  14. Arnold
    July 16, 2013 at 2:52 pm

    WOW! This seems like an amazing idea – and it would be incredible if it were to actually happen… I doubt it though. There’s way too many companies and gov’t bureaucracy to stand in the way of this becoming a reality. It can however replace the California Hyper Rail System that keeps being proposed, and can serve as the guinea-pig model.

    My only gripe, and it’s a small one mind you. is the shoddy video they put together – it’s horrible. And WTF is up with showing the Twin Towers blowing up… POOR TASTE ALL AROUND.

    That’s my 2 cents, thanks.

  15. Giselle
    July 16, 2013 at 3:34 pm

    This advancement would cause so many new opportunities for us folks in the entertainment industry. How exciting! Many of us actors could work our jobs in NY and be able to catch our auditions in L.A. in an hours time! Talk about being bi coastal Wow! How exciting. I hope this can be constructed in my lifetime!

  16. Jordan
    July 16, 2013 at 4:15 pm

    The author of this article called the Hyperloop a tube transport similar to ET3. If they had done their homework, they would have found Musk’s tweet stating that no, this is not a vacuum tunnel.

    Further proof that technology only creates more jobs. Before the internet, you had to be educated, intelligent, and properly research a story before publishing. Now, any moron with a keyboard is a “journalist.”

  17. Blake
    July 16, 2013 at 4:18 pm

    “What about all the horse trainers and horses?” – Guy who read article about highways and cars.

  18. Corey
    July 16, 2013 at 5:37 pm

    Hell, with this thing.. you could have a job in Cali while living in an entire other state, as far as NY apparently.. I think we’ll be fine.

  19. JP
    July 16, 2013 at 5:44 pm

    Can someone explain to me how your body can withstand 4,000 MPH travel?

    1. Robert
      July 17, 2013 at 3:13 am

      We’re traveling upwards of 67,000mph around the sun.
      The speed doesn’t matter, it’s the acceleration. Does sitting in your car at a steady 60mph feel any different than at 30? At 0? Or a plane at a couple hundred mph?

    2. Patrick
      July 17, 2013 at 12:35 pm

      JP: Can someone explain to me how your body can withstand 4,000 MPH travel?

      Only acceleration matters when you’re talking about what the human body can withstand, which is about 5 g, before you start to lose to lose consciousness.. (1 g = 9.8 m/s^2) Fighter pilots wear special suits which allow them to tolerate about 9 g without losing consciouness. A sustained “comfortable” level I think is around 2-3 g.

      Commercial airplanes fly at speeds of ~550 mph. But the only thing you typically notice is take off and landing, because thats when the plane is speeding up/slowing down.

      1. Michael
        July 19, 2013 at 12:17 am

        Ok great point let’s just scrap the whoollle idea then. Thanks for pointing out it’s impossible. Go jump on the junk heap of humanity with the 99.999% rest of the idiots.

  20. Mike Carbonneau
    July 16, 2013 at 6:01 pm

    If our system seems hell bent on paying billions of dollars to bolster up other nations using private mega-companies like Halibertan(sp?), why not give them a project like this that won’t have millions of people shooting at us when we’re done.

  21. FlagDUDE08
    July 16, 2013 at 7:13 pm

    The biggest mistake being made is that you’re trying to replace something already available. Try a market that doesn’t exist, like direct Los Angeles to Oahu, or Seattle to Juneau. If you can pull that off, maybe you’ll gain some ground.

  22. Brittany
    July 16, 2013 at 7:20 pm

    I wouldn’t give up my car, simply because I’m sure I won’t be able to use this system to get groceries or go to the zoo or my simple 10 mile commute to work, but to get to and from home considering I’m military… I’d do that in a heart beat! This would be a perfect for the military in general, consider the savings in general for everyone that has to do long trips. Imagine the whole family being able to be together for Christmas or thanksgiving I’m just saying $100 for a trip is a whole lot cheaper than $400 doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that out

  23. Jason
    July 16, 2013 at 7:31 pm

    Please. An innovation like this is not going to kill all the poor auto worker and airliner jobs and leave an economic wasteland. Consider the products that will have to be completely systematized up the to the nanometer: superconducting magnets, a whole industry of liquid helium, engineers to monitor these systems (which can go from heaven to explosions in a heartbeat!), railcars, etc. Just the technology to make all these superconducting parts work should be enough motivation to start this right away. Think how many small problems an engineer would have to solve just to stick them all in a row underground and connect them to so many different power grids, all providing the same amount of power with absolutely no random frequencies to cause an instability! And you think this is going to kill jobs!

  24. Glenn Akexander
    July 16, 2013 at 10:57 pm

    Wait! You want to put these new fangled auto mo beals on our roads? You don’t understand life. What about the carriage makers, the blacksmiths, the stable owners, horse breeders, and all the others who will suddenly be out of work as result of this idea of yours?! Why the whole economy will grind to a halt, no one will have jobs anymore, life as we know it will end! This is just madness. No siree – you can keep your (whatdidyoucallit – cars?) to yourself. As a species there is no way to adapt to this suggested innovation and we should just stick to horses. Come on now, you know I’m right!!

  25. stephen
    July 17, 2013 at 12:21 am

    Hope I live to see its fruition. Magnetic levitation is definitely the most efficient transportation bar none. Automobiles are already obsolete and wasteful. Eventually maglev will be the solution for both local and long distance travel. Both public and private “car” systems will be available. Imagine a world without traffic lights, stop signs, accidents, tickets, DUI, hit and runs, vehicular manslaughter, uninsured drivers, auto theft, traffic jams, flat tires, breakdowns, gas prices, insurance, pollution, road kill, streetlights, street signs, cement roads, or wasted real estate. The elevated system will be virtually impervious to all current weather delays. Isolation, desperation and desolation are reduced. Increased pedestrian activity aids in our overall health and social interactions, strengthening communities. Opportunity to read a book, text, meet somebody new, surf the internet, conduct business, daydream, etc. I am a video producer and would love to create a sexier marketing video for this wonderful idea.

  26. HS
    July 17, 2013 at 12:58 am

    I looked up this guy’s other YouTube account. He’s a full-on 9/11 truther, Alex Jones fan. Nut job, in other words. I’m guessing he’s probably angling for investors and nothing will ever come of any of this. At least not through this guy. He’s a loon.

  27. Robert
    July 17, 2013 at 3:16 am

    Well, how many people and how often can this thing transfer?
    And, my concern is the safety of the structure itself from both human vandalism/terrorism as well as geological and meteorlogical activity… Such a large, physically connected system as such seems much more risky.

  28. Cobus
    July 17, 2013 at 3:55 am

    Come on guys, built it to africa. Think of all the entertainment within 3 hours for $300
    Perhaps we can employ all those farmers in our mid africa countries and you can be back every weekend in USA.
    Think big

  29. Zach Goeringer
    July 17, 2013 at 10:46 am

    I keep seeing the word capitalist being thrown around. This hasn’t been a capitalist government in over 20 years. We are now a socialist government quite similar to Europe in the 20’s and 30’s.

  30. Captain Kirk
    July 17, 2013 at 2:16 pm

    Tell me when they get the damn Teleporter working.

  31. Janette s
    July 17, 2013 at 3:44 pm


  32. Jeff Dearman
    July 17, 2013 at 4:06 pm

    Not to mention highways and air traffic have poisoned our planet and caused global climate change, global warming. Why not try for a better transit system….the same people who worked int he airlines could work at the train stations and such

  33. Alejandro
    July 17, 2013 at 5:17 pm

    This sounds awesome. Surely the benefits would outweigh the detriments. However….

    What I’d be concerned about, though, is something similar to the problems we’ve been seeing with the LA SF high speed rail.
    Would it be possible to get 3,000 miles of continuous land from LA to NYC without it seemingly becoming a anti-middle-America campaign?
    How many people would have to be moved, or have their land bought/taxed out from under them, for a project of this size?
    While the train could go 4,000 mph and go coast-to-coast in an hour, the only real way for this to be viable is if it could stop in other major cities across the USA. That would, as anyone can imagine, quickly extend the travel time from ~60 minutes to probably at least a few hours. Still, it would be impressive to travel coast to coast in a few hours for ~$100, and an obvious solution is to have multiple tracks and perhaps an express train or two that didn’t make stops.
    And then the final concern: Anything moving at that speed, even something as minuscule as a piece of lead weighing a few grams (a.k.a. a bullet) has it’s destructive ability exponentially multiplied should it hit anything. At maximum speed the thing will be going over Mach 5. Imagine if the breaks failed, or someone did something to derail it into a populated area.
    While I hate to go there, these days this kind of thing is a concern ๐Ÿ™

    1. Kurt
      July 19, 2013 at 10:20 pm

      You can have express routes, and also have shorter routes where the car is diverted to a pit stop along the way, via a parallel side route. The kinetic energy at those speeds is great, and in a mishap you could die. Now a plane crash…..

  34. Alexandria
    July 17, 2013 at 8:16 pm

    I think this is Amazing!

  35. Heywood Jablowme
    July 18, 2013 at 8:50 am

    I think it’s a great idea. I don’t know how many people can withstand the g-force associated with travelling somewhere near Mach 5 though. I also don’t see how they make it financially viable only charging $100 per trip. As far as jobs are concerned, I can see the rental car industry adding some employees. Once you get to L.A, from N.Y, how do you get around? If this new form of transportation will increase the number of people travelling coast to coast, more rental cars will be needed.

  36. Daniel T.
    July 18, 2013 at 4:16 pm

    Not to mention, this would be EVERY Police Officer’s nightmare. Imagine, You’re right on a suspects tail, traversing through the damp streets of New York, when WOOSH suddenly he’s in California.

  37. Brandon Eubanks
    July 18, 2013 at 4:29 pm

    I think someone already mentioned terrorism. This system would have to be segmented to some extent so that an act of terrorism or nature that compromises one segment doesn’t doesn’t cripple the entire connected capillary. Maybe something with super actuated air tight segment seals on both ends of the segment. They would have to test not only their segments pressure but make sure the adjoining segments pressure is equalized before either segment opens their adjoining seals. All while still being able to open open for traffic quickly enough ahead of time that should something happen you won’t have vessels slamming into segment seals at high speed. Sounds technically doable.

  38. The Man
    July 18, 2013 at 4:33 pm

    Great! Now we can have 4000 mph train crashes.

  39. John
    July 18, 2013 at 4:42 pm

    I think what people need to realize is there would actually be limited enterprises that would be affected. I am not going to take the HyperLoop to the corner to get milk. I won take a HyperLoop to travel an hour to my parents home. I will still need my vehicle to get to work and run my errands. I will still need to travel short to medium length distances. Will I use the HyperLoop to get across the country in an hour, sure and everybody else should as well because that is human advancement. The primary losers of this would be the Airlines and the Gas corporations. And the only beautiful thing about this is, is that the person who is creating it is already a billionaire. So that person cant be bought off by the disgusting greed hounds. And personally, we need to break away from oil and gas, and lets face it, everybody hates flying because the airlines treat us like garbage. I say bring on the advancement, and all the jobs that will come with the construction, maintainence, and daily operations.

    July 18, 2013 at 7:46 pm

    Why are there so many morons posting here.

    1. JillyD
      July 19, 2013 at 8:21 pm

      You should have ended that sentence two words sooner.

    2. Kurt
      July 19, 2013 at 10:14 pm

      The Moron League has a plentiful supply of operatives available to post nonsense all over the place. They outnumber visionaries at least 1000 to 1.

  41. Ron
    July 18, 2013 at 9:20 pm

    Amazing! For those who oppose it: you can’t fight technology. Your grandparents had the same reaction to computers. I hope this connects the whole world soon so we can pass this old way of transportation called flying.

  42. Patrick
    July 18, 2013 at 10:00 pm

    Great concept. I hope they use some of their invested cash to produce a better video, though. Video production technology is fairly advanced, now, They might want to get on board with something a bit smoother than Powerpoint. “Let’s throw some plane crash photos together and call it a marketing tool!” Oy!

  43. Lexy
    July 19, 2013 at 2:45 am

    Its not 4000mph, its 800mph

  44. Iggy Pop
    July 19, 2013 at 5:09 am

    I have to second ‘Bob Dylan’s’ concern regarding stops. To be a feasible design, they would have to be fairly few and far between because it would presumably be very energy inefficient to be stopping all the time, given that the whole journey is only an hour. I suppose, like a regular cross country train, stops could be made every ten to twenty minutes. This is a fantastic idea and would be a hallmark in progress of the human race. Progress always shifts our realities but why should that be a bad thing. Not to mention, the auto industry would not be wiped out by this train; it’s clearly for long distances. Any journey that took under 4 hours by car would not be worth traveling on the train. Any journey that takes you more than, say, a tank of gas, becomes economically beneficial. Not to mention, environmental friendliness.

  45. Beavis
    July 19, 2013 at 9:25 am

    I stopped reading the comments after the 75 bash of the dude talking about capitalism, so, forgive me if these points have been made already. If the California high speed rail system will cost $70 billion, this system will cost $700 billion or more. Yes, I know the federal goverment spent (wasted) that much on the bailout. Also, there is no discussion of the energy required to maintain a vacuum in the tube or to propel the capsule to 4000 mph. The energy usage will be significant. Another hurdle may be the airline lobby (Although Southwest Airline decided to support high speed rail in Texas after many years fighting it). None of these should be impediments, mind you, as we are an amazing country and can do anything we put our minds to.

  46. ChrisL
    July 19, 2013 at 11:01 am

    Travelling 4,000 Miles per hour? What if the tube breaks by terrorism,๏ปฟ or an earthquake? All those people are dead. This idea won’t work unless those problems are solved.

  47. JDV
    July 19, 2013 at 1:27 pm

    Anything and Everything is Possible! What you believe to be, IS! We are only limited by those who believe other-wise! Truly.

  48. Robert Peters
    July 19, 2013 at 4:13 pm

    The FAQs on should answer most of the technical questions (I’m not in a position to judge the marketing claims). ET3 is proposing the use of evacuated tubes, various safety features, and automated routing of 4 to 6 person capsules, not trains.

  49. Rob Jones
    July 19, 2013 at 8:47 pm

    It’s a neat idea. But if a high speed rail link from SF to LA costs $70 billion, how much would a hyperloop system cost? I think the cost for a hyperloop system would be at least ten times higher than a traditional high speed line. So $700 billion for a SF to LA hyperloop and probably several trillion dollars for a LA to NY train. I think the construction costs would be way too high. Not to mention the operating costs to keep the tubes evacuated.

  50. Kurt
    July 19, 2013 at 10:10 pm

    We really don’t know how cheap continental scale fast travel would affect our lives and the economy. Just as when the internet and then the web was first implemented, those few people who used it could not imagine eBay, Amazon, blogging, Fecebook, Google, Instagram or any of the other entities that we take for granted today. Whatever will fall by the way side, and whatever will be created, we simply don’t know. There are always so many possibilities.

    July 19, 2013 at 11:14 pm

    How about just Los Angeles to Las Vegas as a pilot program? At 4,000mph it would take just under 4mins to get to Vegas. I can go for that!

  52. Des
    July 20, 2013 at 12:00 am

    It’s a stupid idea. Great concept, stupid idea. You’re talking about hundreds of major cities, but EXTREMELY limited transport system. The cars carry a minimal number of passengers. So you can go from LA to NYC but you can’t go from LA to San Diego? Chicago to Detroit? Houston to New Orleans? Even if it goes somewhere you want to go, you have to wait in line for 10 or 20 hours behind the rest of the people?

    Articles like this are meant to appeal to the Pollyanna readers. It’s pie in the sky, nothing more.

  53. Cow
    July 20, 2013 at 9:00 pm

    That would be wicked travel would not be such a pain. Moving freight same day as well

  54. Ryan
    July 21, 2013 at 10:26 pm

    What if I want to go to St. Louis?

  55. boner29
    July 21, 2013 at 10:48 pm

    the amount of infrastructure needed for this is just unrealistic. we already don’t have the money to overhaul our current highways and bridges, why would someone think we could build an entirely new cross country/continent system. as freaking COOL as it is, its unfortunately too ambitious. a novelty idea.

  56. Jose Garcia
    July 22, 2013 at 5:12 am

    For all those comments about this idea’s relationship to the economy i say this ‘this is just another example of capitalism’s obsolescence. You people can only think in terms of jobs as if we can ONLY live in a world where the vast majority of us work, and its pathetic.

  57. Dom
    July 30, 2013 at 4:45 pm

    The problem is stops along the way. You have to slow down to stop and then get off the system at random stops. You would have to have scheduled stops like Amtrak and this would slow down your travel JUST LIKE AMTRAK. BUT THE PERIOD WHERE YOU ARE WAITING WITH A TRAIN MOVING SO FAST AFTER YOU TO MAKE IT’S NEXT STOP WILL SLOW DOWN THE WHOLE SYSTEM. There would have to be a lot of infrastructure built to accomplish this and make it feasible. It would be great for moving goods, but difficult for mass commuter transit because there would have to be so much loading and unloading at stops along the way to New York. You are not going to make it in an hour or you are going to run into the train stopped or slowing down to stop at Omaha. logistics would be a royal pain for this. Now one up to Alaska or Hawaii with almost no where to stop on the way. that could be reasonable. maybe

  58. Vincent Manco
    December 5, 2013 at 8:00 am

    So industries should stay as wasteful and destructive to preserve the economic status of some people? Are you kidding? How could this be more harmful than allowing less conscious companies to continue to ship shop over to China. The first gentlemans point is absolutely absurd.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *