Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Transportation Earth The Almighty Buck

Missouri Considers Hyperloop Route Between St. Louis and Kansas City (theverge.com) 154

Missouri officials are forming a public-private partnership to study the feasibility of building a hyperloop route between St. Louis and Kansas City. The study is being supported by Hyperloop One, and conducted by a consortium of groups, including the Missouri Department of Transportation, the St. Louis Regional Chamber, the KC Tech Council, the University of Missouri System, and the Missouri Innovation Center in Columbia. The Verge reports: St. Louis to Kansas City is a 248-mile route that takes around three hours and 40 minutes by car, or about 55 minutes by plane (not including time spent traveling to the airport, security lines, etc.). Hyperloop One claims the trip would just take 31 minutes using its system of aerodynamic pods traveling through nearly airless tubes at speeds of up to 760 mph. Of course, that depends on building hundreds of miles of tubes, either above ground on pylons along a highway like I-70, or through underground tunnels. The Missouri study will explore all these options, as well the amount of state money that would be needed to build it. The study will cost about $1.5 million, and will be paid for using private funds, Missouri officials said.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Missouri Considers Hyperloop Route Between St. Louis and Kansas City

Comments Filter:
  • by scdeimos ( 632778 ) on Tuesday October 03, 2017 @05:04PM (#55304247)

    St. Louis to Kansas City is a 248-mile route that takes around three hours and 40 minutes by car, or about 55 minutes by plane (not including time spent traveling to the airport, security lines, etc.). Hyperloop One claims the trip would just take 31 minutes using its system of aerodynamic pods traveling through nearly airless tubes at speeds of up to 760 mph.

    I do believe you're kidding yourself if you think TSA will allow very expensive Hyperloops to operate without forcing security checkpoints and security screening on everyone using them.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      You can't hijack a hyperloop and crash it in to a building.
      While the cost of damage would be very high, the risk to life isn't really any different than a bus or train full of people. How hard would it be to derail a passenger train with an IED on the tracks? You only need enough explosive to cut through a single rail.

      • by Obfuscant ( 592200 ) on Tuesday October 03, 2017 @05:18PM (#55304315)

        While the cost of damage would be very high, the risk to life isn't really any different than a bus or train full of people.

        Perhaps you missed that [tsa.gov] TSA is involved with trains. Hyperloop, due to its huge pricetag and high tech, will be a prime target. While you can't hijack a car, you can certainly make it disintegrate in a spectacular way.

        It will not be TSA that pushes for their control of security checkpoints for Hyperloop terminals, it will be people, once the first hyperloop train is destroyed by anyone who can have a political agenda attached to them. Even if not. There are already calls for tighter security in HOTELS because of the Las Vegas shooting. How COULD anyone get so many guns into a hotel room? (Carry them in. Next question?) Doesn't this show a need for gun control? (He was using AK-47s if what I heard is correct, one of the guns that is already heavily controlled, so no. Next question?)

        How hard would it be to derail a passenger train with an IED on the tracks?

        Passenger trains are low-tech commonplace things. The first (and second and probably third) public Hyperloop will be the opposite.

        • The TSA wouldn't care about a hyperloop being expensive and supposedly a high target. The TSA would see it as a chance to expand their power and influence. It would be a chance for the head of the department to be in charge of more people and have a larger budget. There would be fights inside the TSA about where to place hyperloops because those people would want the improved status.

          • The TSA wouldn't care about a hyperloop being expensive and supposedly a high target. The TSA would see it as a chance to expand their power and influence.

            For whatever reason the TSA has, it won't necessarily be them who demands the introduction of security checkpoints at Hyperloop terminals. That's what I was saying.

            There would be fights inside the TSA about where to place hyperloops

            I don't think I've ever heard of a fight within TSA over the placement of an airport, so I doubt they'd have much influence over the placement of Hyperloop terminals.

            • It would be a fight within the TSA over where in the organization the new people would fit in and who made the rules for the publics "safety".

        • by Kartu ( 1490911 )

          People keep asking about guns as if it were canons. You could fit 20 guns int 2-3 large bags, what is the deal?

        • by Agripa ( 139780 )

          It will not be TSA that pushes for their control of security checkpoints for Hyperloop terminals, it will be people, once the first hyperloop train is destroyed by anyone who can have a political agenda attached to them.

          It will be the airlines if they perceive Hyperloop as a threat and the rent seekers in government when they see another way to loot.

      • by gweihir ( 88907 )

        And what do you think happens when somebody blows up a very fast capsule in a "nearly airless" very long tube?

        Incidentally, an IED does nothing to train-rails. You vastly underestimate how tough they are. You need to cut a length out of the rails and that can (and has been in the past) be detected by standard monitoring systems after the first cut. It takes a while to do each of both cuts while sparks fly everywhere. This is just way too hard to do without getting caught and you need special equipment (can

        • You get a bit of a shockwave traveling down the tube? Maybe you manage to punch a hole in the tube and get and not-that-hard to manage air inrush event. Basically the tube would need some maintenance, and might ring like a gong, but it probably wouldn't make for much of a media spectacle.

          As for trains - you don't need to sever the tracks, you just need to disrupt the foundation enough so that they're far enough from parallel to derail the train.

      • You can't hijack a hyperloop and crash it in to a building. While the cost of damage would be very high, the risk to life isn't really any different than a bus or train full of people.

        No, you can't crash a hyperloop car into a skyscraper, but if you blow one up you might take down the whole, expensive loop, requiring millions of dollars of repairs. The concerns may not be as great for above ground sections, but any tunnel portions will be especially vulnerable to destruction. One incident would scare a lot of people away from the technology, because how easy do you think it will be to mount a rescue operation if a tunnel collapses? Catastrophic failures in a hyperloop system will be virt

        • by mspohr ( 589790 )

          Just patch the hole and start it up again.
          Hyperloop capsules only hold 10 or 20 people... fewer than a city bus. Not a very attractive target.

          • Just patch the hole and start it up again.

            A very simplistic view of what damage would be done.

            Hyperloop capsules only hold 10 or 20 people... fewer than a city bus. Not a very attractive target.

            And how many people will the next capsule to depart from the station be holding, if the news that the capsule ahead of theirs was blown up by a terrorist? Will those 20 people think "gosh, how terrible, but it won't happen to me..."? Or will they say "I don't really need to travel today, not by Hyperloop"? And the people following them, and then the next capsule ... and as the news propagates to other Hyperloop terminals and passengers ...

            The effect a te

            • by mspohr ( 589790 )

              People didn't stop flying because terrorists blew up airplanes.
              Terrorists won't even try to blow up the Hyperloop. There are much easier, better targets.
              Get your shorts all twisted up worrying about something else.

              • People didn't stop flying because terrorists blew up airplanes.

                I don't know what planet you live on, but here on Earth, yes, indeed, people did stop flying because of 9/11. Not all of them, but a large number -- significant enough that it had a major impact on airline service levels.

                Terrorists won't even try to blow up the Hyperloop.

                They'd be a great target. Why wouldn't they? The first Hyperloop system will get a lot of press, and blowing it up would get a lot more.

                There are much easier, better targets.

                Terrorists don't look just for easy targets. They look for targets with an impact on the most people, or to make a statement.

                Get your shorts all twisted up worrying about something else.

                Get a clue on reality and un

        • It's not going to be any easier to destroy much Hyperloop than it would rail. You're probably imagining a movie-style chain reaction implosion - but there's no way for that to happen outside of Hollywood, the physics are all wrong.

        • If a tunnel collapses, it's probably about as hard to mount a rescue operation as a tunnel collapse in a subway system.

          I just don't see the value in screening passengers when there is a larger attack surface sitting on the ground. You don't need to be a psycho suicide bomber to attack from the outside either, like a passenger would be.

      • by DrXym ( 126579 )
        No, but somebody armed with a bomb could blow the shit out of everyone in a pod and potentially cause billions of dollars of economic damage.
        • You could do the same thing on a bus. There's more people on a bus than a hyperloop pod, and if it's done in the middle of rush hour in the middle of the CBD in a large city, it's going to shut down the entire city.

          A hyperloop isn't going to be the only way to get from A to B. If it's not working, people will drive, fly, train or bus instead. The only ones losing money will be insurance companies. The airlines and bus/train companies will get a nice profit boost. The hyperloop company will get a whole lot o

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Indeed. Expect at least 1 hour of additional wait time. On the other hand, in most of Europe, you can just get on a high-speed train as soon as you have a ticket, no security check whatsoever, because trains are very hard to derail from the inside.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      TSA is not going to miss the chance of getting that sweet hyperloop monies and expanding its reach.

    • There's no point in security among the passengers when any terrorist can punch a hole anywhere along the 248-mile tube and kill everyone in the tube with a 15-psi overpressure shock wave moving at the speed of sound. Well, I suppose an errant driver could do this, too, by crashing into the tube.
    • by DrXym ( 126579 )
      I don't see how they can claim no queues when all the experience of public transportation suggests that at peak times there sure as hell will be queues at one point or another.
  • by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Tuesday October 03, 2017 @05:06PM (#55304259) Journal

    Why would anyone want to go from St Louis to Kansas City, or vice versa? And if there is some reason that you actually need to make that trip, why would you want to do it in such a hurry?

    I'm not trying to make a joke here. I really need to know.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      My guess is it has something to do with Kansas City being the biggest city in Missouri, but St Louis being the capital. Lots of travel between the two, and nothing important in between.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Jefferson City is the Capital, St Louis is the biggest city. And Columbia (Mizzou) is in the middle

        • by Anonymous Coward

          Kansas City is the biggest city with 480,000 people. Saint Louis (population: 310,000) is the center of the biggest metropolitan area.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Great, except Jefferson City is the capital....

        KC and STL are the two largest cities in MO though.

        Hyperloop is a terrible idea. Just increase the speed limit on I-70 to 120 mph. Problem solved. A lot of people already think that's the limit anyways.

    • Re:Serious question (Score:4, Interesting)

      by HornWumpus ( 783565 ) on Tuesday October 03, 2017 @05:21PM (#55304333)

      Reading between the lines. Someone got a grant, their employer has a publicist (good old Mizzou), 'theVerge' has no bullshit filter.

      Bottom line, someone and his/her grad students will be living it up for the next few years. I-70 is a busy highway. They will conclude that it makes no sense if not part of a bigger system, getting it half right.

    • by ntsucks ( 22132 )

      KC BBQ

      • Little-known fact: St Louis has better BBQ than Kansas City.

        • by rfengr ( 910026 )
          Papppy’s is good, but Jack Stack is better.
        • Little-known fact: St Louis has better BBQ than Kansas City.

          Well-know fact: anyone who considers the BBQ scene or culture of one region to be absolutely better than that of another, knows nothing about BBQ. I love some Texas brisket (which itself comes in many forms, by the way), Nashville chicken, Carolina pork (which, again, is far from being specific) and KC ribs, but that doesn't mean one is "better" as a fact, nor that I can't get good Q in Ohio.

          • I love some Texas brisket

            I just left Texas after living there a year. The brisket there is nothing but burned meat. I ate a lot of Texas bbq, maybe a couple of times a week. The Pit Room in Houston is very good, and there's a place over by Baytown that is fantastic, but it doesn't rank in the top 10 of US bbq.

            Ribs & Bibs on 53rd Street in Chicago is much better than anything in Texas. KC and STL are better. Nashville, Carolina - both better.

            I have gotten decent bbq in Ohio. I'm trying to remember

            • In the Cincinnati area, there are a few good places depending on where you are and how far you would like to drive.

              West side - Walt's BBQ on Colerain Ave.
              Fairfield / Colerain Township / Tri-County - Big Art's BBQ
              Eastgate / Anderson Township / Newtown - Just Q'in. Extra points for having the growler station across the street
              Mount Adams / Downtown - Eli's BBQ. They also have a truck that shows up at various events.

              There's a guy that just set up a trailer and 4 smokers at a busy intersection about a half mil

              • There's a guy that just set up a trailer and 4 smokers at a busy intersection about a half mile from my house - jury is still out on his stuff.

                Gotta support local entrepreneurs. I always give food trucks and trailers extra credit just for existing.

                There's this truck, Rojo Taco, in Houston and I still regret not having one more of their taco plates w/ nopales before leaving town. It was on my schedule, but then Hurricane Harvey hit and I don't know what happened to him. I hope he's OK. I can close my eye

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • They're big cities, and there's a lot of business transacted between them. Everything doesn't happen on the coasts, you know.
      • They're big cities, and there's a lot of business transacted between them. Everything doesn't happen on the coasts, you know.

        There's already a train that will take you from KC to St Louis, or vice versa, for about 30 bucks.

        Note: I used to live in Rolla, MO, and have traveled to KC and STL on many occasions. I just don't see the need for a Hyperloop. It's not like they're going to carry freight.

    • Why would anyone want to go from St Louis to Kansas City, or vice versa? And if there is some reason that you actually need to make that trip, why would you want to do it in such a hurry?

      I'm not trying to make a joke here. I really need to know.

      Every large city in the country, and many small cities and towns, can provide you with most anything you need to live every day of your life. So why not ask why anyone ever travels to a different city, and why they don't normally walk or otherwise take the slowest route possible? Why not travel as quickly as possible? Maybe there are people who do business in both cities, live in one and do business in the other, or have family on the opposite side of the state? You wouldn't even think to ask this question

    • Right now, it's about a 3-4 hour trip by car. If you have business in the other, which happens all the time, it either means you have a very long day driving back or have to spend money on a hotel. They are really too close to fly economically and with security wait times, probably better off driving. If it gets built and works, this would be a great base to expand off of. Denver is a 9-hour drive west on I-70 from Kansas CIty. Expanding to Dallas via Oklahoma City and Witchita wouldn't be much of a stretc
      • There's a nice Amtrak train that goes from STL to KC. You can get work done, or relax during the ride and be fresh for your "business" in the other city. Costs $30, which is less than the gas to make the drive.

        There will never be a Hyperloop from STL to KC. They can't even afford to educate kids in Missouri, how they going to build a Hyperloop?

        • Amtrak's site says that it's a 5-hour 40-minute trip one way with very limited departure times. STL to KC you'd have under an hour if you are trying to avoid a hotel. KC to STL you'd have about 2 hours. Not much time if you have a meeting that's not near the station. If the technology works, it has the potential to replace most domestic flights. They would build STL/KC if for no other reason then its the best route between the east coast and west coast is along I-70 and adding potential stops in several lar
  • by darkain ( 749283 ) on Tuesday October 03, 2017 @05:18PM (#55304309) Homepage

    Transportation is merely just a series of tubes!

  • by Anonymous Coward

    I bet, like other states, they consider lots of things, all the time.

    I considered eating a half-gallon of Haagen-Dasz last night, but I didn't in the end.

    There is no story here until the hyperloop is built and accepting passengers.

  • >> is hyperloop feasible?

    No. Now where's my $1m for the study?
  • by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Tuesday October 03, 2017 @05:20PM (#55304327)

    And with far less time to get onto the vehicle and out again probably in the same more realistic time (about 1h). And it could be done with reliable, established technology that you can buy on the market instead of some fantasy-construct that may or may not ever work well or safely.
     

    • Yeah a nice Shinkansen would beat this route in the same time as an airplane but without the annoying checkins.

      • by gweihir ( 88907 )

        Indeed. Or ICE, TGV, CRH, Sapsan, etc. This is market with a lot of established known-to-work options. If you want something really flashy going at 500km/h but still being essentially a train from a passenger POV, get a Transrapid. Although that has some rather bad limitations compared to trains.

        The US is _very_ late to this game. Magically thinking that the "Hyperloop" hyper-hype will make up for that is just plain stupid. Be rational and select one from the established options and then (if you insist) lea

    • that this is all just a way for Musk to find & train engineers on the cheap. He spent $10 million out of pocket (give or take) and he's got every university and their student body falling all over themselves for it. Even if he didn't plan it that's what's happened.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • The Hyperloop idea sure has been good for business lately... the "conduct a study" business, that is. How do I get in on some of that action?

    • Takes years of asskissing. Politiking a committee, not fucking any committee member's daughters etc. Convince them your dissertation is up to their standards of incomprehensibility and weight (not intellectual 'weight', mass). Read some entrails, dance naked about and jump over bonfires (with large dangerous fireworks glued to your pubic hair). Hop skip and puke contests. etc.

  • Expense and problems dealing with existing infrastructure and approvals are going to be a tiny fraction of what they would be in LA. When the bugs are worked out in Midwest then tackle the more complex project.
    • by PPH ( 736903 )

      Walmart.

      Got its start by concentrating in rural towns. Flying under the radar of competition and big city politicians with their grubby little hands out. Could work for Hyperloop as well.

      • Got its start by concentrating in rural towns.

        So Hyperloop's business model should be building billion dollar trains to connect rural towns, just to get a "foothold" in the market? "The 10:15 Hyperloop from Pixley to Hootersville is now boarding on track 5. All aBOARD!" "Conductor, does this hyperloop stop at Petticoat Junction?"

        A hint: when you stay at the Shady Rest, don't drink the tap water. I hear that the girls bathe in it.

        What did God say when he saw Eve swimming in the river? "I'll never get that smell off those fish." Thank you, try the veal

  • The Hyperloop has already been proven to be a death trap, via physics. But Hyperloop One is still working up funding for the thing. Must be a curious history behind that one.

  • Those of us who live on the coasts might discount St. Louis and the two Kansas Cities as fly-over country. However, both are relatively big cities. St. Louis has a large university, a regional medical complex that covers 7 or 8 square blocks, working mass transit, and a good deal of industry. Last month when I was there, helicopters never stopped flying in and out of the hospital heliport.

    Kansas City is two cities straddling a river and state border: Kansas City Kansas, and Kansas City Missouri. It has more

    • Last month when I was there, helicopters never stopped flying in and out of the hospital heliport.

      I don't see that as a big selling point. Do they have really bad drivers there or high levels of shootings that require the helicopters to be used so often? I'd want to live in a place where the only time the helicopter goes out is so the pilot can maintain his/her flight hours.

      • Industrial and farming machines are dangerous, people have heart attacks and strokes, and people have lots of other reasons that they end up in a helicopter to the hospital. I'd assume that the hospital is being fed by a large portion of at least two states, and probably smaller hospitals.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Building high-speed rail between St. Louis and Kansas City is considered impractical for some reason, but building a metal tube hundreds of miles long and pumping virtually all the air out of it is considered cheaper and more practical?

    Elon, go back to SpaceX where at least you're doing something useful.

  • How bout Tesla's flying electric rocket cars? Those are going to be really fast and all the rage in a couple years. Press release coming later this week.
  • Hyperloop One claims the trip would just take 31 minutes using its system of aerodynamic pods traveling through nearly airless tubes at speeds of up to 760 mph.

    Well, it’s great and all that Hyperloop claims that they can do this without a single system being deployed anywhere in the world. The winner of their design competition—the one that had miniaturized pods move without a payload—didn’t even go a third of this speed. Shouldn’t Musk at least provide a working prototype
  • Would it be called the Kansas City Shuttle?

  • These people haven't built even a fully working, usable prototype yet.
    And I'm sick of them shilling their snake oil.
    "Hyperloop here! Hyperloop there! Hyperloop, Hyperloop EVERYWHERE!"

    They may as well be shilling a 100MPG carburetor that magically converts plain water into a combustible fuel source.

  • Current trip: 40 minutes by car. Proposed hyperloop: 31 minutes. Supposed speed "up to 760 mph"

    So.... Spend how many millions (billions?) to shave off 9 minutes. Certainly pay more per trip than the car or bus trip would have cost. And for how few milliseconds can you actually get anywhere near that top speed and still have the trip take 31 minutes?

    I get that you can't maintain that top speed for the entire trip. Is it an accelerating half / decelerating half kind of thing? That kind of speed would ma

    • Current trip: 40 minutes by car.

      Driving your Veyron down the private boulevard, are you? lol

    • Apparently you missed the Three hours, portion of the statement on how long the trip currently takes :). Words mixed with numbers are always confusing :)
  • and I've only been to KC once or twice. I don't think enough people travel regularly back and forth to justify this. I assume there would be no stops in between (I admittedly don't know much about hyperloop) so I think the application of this is very limited. However, if it would alleviate some traffic on Rt 70, then I am all for it.
    Maybe I would go to KC more often if there was a hyperloop, but I honestly think a loop to Chicago would be better.

    Could be that this is just a story to pique the interest of

    • My thought as well - as a life-long Missourian, I can't see any purpose in this boondoggle, other than showing off. A loop from KC to Springfield would be more useful.

      Meanwhile, our fine state legislators are discussing ways to increase revenues by creating crimes where none currently exist.

  • Help! My browser keeps correcting "public-private partnership" into "excellent graft opportunity".

    That's not right.

Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle. -- Steinbach

Working...