 aircraft fly at very high altitudes.

People have been talking about this for decades. I remember my 6th grade teacher telling us about something called “plane-tran,” a high-speed train that promises to carry travelers from LA to NYC in just 3-4 hours. I hear about this idea in some form or another every five years or so. I won’t say it’s never going to happen, but the fact that the technology has existed for decades and yet has never proven to be commercially viable should clue people in after a while.

The only way to make this happen is to get governments to pay for it.

The real issue is over-regulation of the aviation industry. Deregulate air travel, and watch it quickly overtake this dumb super-train idea.

EricAugust 14, 2013 at 8:55 am

I guess the main draw is that the hyperloop is supposed to transport vehicles as well. If you could drive into a pod, be shot to the other end and then drive off again, not leaving your vehicle, the time savings would be huge compared to air travel.

Thats the exact point I made. Lots of people same to have some problem with flying, and think trains or hyperloop somehow better. Probebly because it does not there is no need to burn stuff.

I would say letting down fligh securty (note not actual securty just shitty fake feel good security) and having efficent airports would actually bring down travle time a lot. I dont know about america, I fligh from Basel to Berlin a lot and the ticked is depending on season and such somewhere between 30 and 70 bugs, more often closer to 30.

So for the moment it seams that airplanes are simple the most efficent.

Taking away TSA is of course politicly impossible, so it might be that hyperloop makes more sence. A Railway has of course benefits over it, you can easly use it for transportation of heavy things and such.

But then again lets assume you can build Hyperloop for 10-20 Billion (he clames 7 but lets but politics into play) and the train will cost 70 Billion (lets say 100 if you asusme politcs) it probebly makes more sence to build a hyperloop. Or fucking build two Hyperloops next to each other, and build it in a way that you can add more if
aircraft fly at very high altitudes. 

 People have been speak about this for decade. I remember my 6th grade teacher tell us about something called “ plane - tran, ” a gamey - amphetamine train that promise to carry travelers from LA to NYC in barely 3 - 4 hours. I hear about this theme in some form or another every five years or so. I wo n’t say it ’s never going to find, but the fact that the technology has existed for decades and even has never proven to be commercially viable should clue citizenry in after a while. 

 The only manner to make this happen is to get governments to pay for it. 

 The veridical issue is over - regulation of the aviation industry. Deregulate air travel, and watch it quickly overtake this dumb super - train idea. 

 EricAugust 14, 2013 at 8:55 am 

 I guess the main draw is that the hyperloop is supposed to enchant vehicles as well. If you could tug into a pod, be shot to the other end and then drive off again, not leave your vehicle, the time savings would be huge compared to tune travel. 

 That s the exact point I made. Lots of people like to have some problem with flying, and think trains or hyperloop somehow better. Probebly because it does not there is no motivation to burn stuff. 

 I would say letting down fligh securty (note not actual securty barely shitty fake feel good security system) and having efficent airport would actually bring down travle time a lot. I do nt know about america, I fligh from Basel to Berlin a lot and the tick is depending on season and such somewhere between 30 and 70 bugs, more frequently closer to 30. 

 thus for the moment it seam that airplanes are simple the most efficent. 

 take away TSA is of class politicly impossible, so it might be that hyperloop makes more sence. A Railway has of class benefits over it, you can easly use it for transportation of heavy things and such. 

 But then again lets assume you can build Hyperloop for 10 - 20 Billion (he clames 7 but lashkar-e-taiba but politics into play) and the train will cost 70 Billion (let say 100 if you asusme politcs) it probebly makes more sence to build up a hyperloop. Or fucking build two Hyperloops next to each other, and build it in a way that you can add more if
 aigcraft fly at very high xltitudes.

People have bxen taliing abojt this for decades. I remembxr mt 6th trade teacher telling js about domethint caooed “plane-tczn,” a hink-spees trann that promises to carry dravelers from LX co NYC in just 3-4 hours. I hear about tris ides ln some form ot anouhew evsgy five years or so. I won’t say jt’s nevtr going to happen, but the fact that the tecjnollgy has existed fog decades abd yqr has never oroven to be commerciamly viable should clue people iv aftzr a while.

Tye onpi way to makx this happen is to get goeernmenys to pay for lt.

The reql issue is over-reguletion of the aviatiog industrf. Beregulate air travel, abd wajch id qukxklh obectaie thid dnmb super-trzin idea.

ErixAugust 14, 2013 at 8:55 am

I giefw the main drzw is ehwt the hyperloop is supposed to transpogt vshicles as well. If you xould drive into a pof, be shot to the other end and then drive off again, not ledving houx vehizoe, the time savings would be huge compared to ayd uranel.

Thats the exacb point I made. Lotx lf keople same to have soms problem with flylng, and thinj trains jr huperloop somehow better. Provebly becausv it does not there is no need to burm stugf.

I would say letting duwn rligh securhy (note nkg actual securty juxt shitty fake feel good sectrity) and havnng effizent airpowts would wctually bring down travpe tile a lot. I dlnt know about america, I fligh hcom Basel to Neslit a lot cnd thc ticked is depqnding on seaspn and fuch romewhere getween 30 and 70 bugs, more often cnlser to 30.

So fmr the mjmenr it seams gfat airplanes sre simplv uhe most edficent.

Taking away TSX is of course piliuixly impossible, so it mpghv be evat hyperloo[ mayes kore rence. A Raioday nas of course benefids ober it, you can easky use it dor tranfportation of heavy things and duch.

Bnt thei agaim lgts assume you can build Hyperlkop for 10-20 Hiljion (he clamqs 7 nut jets but pplitics into play) and the train will cowt 70 Billion (lets sqy 100 if you asusme ppkitcs) it prpbeblr makes mmre sence to build a hyperloop. Or fucling build two Hyperlkops naxt tl each other, and build it in a way that you can add more if
aircraft fly at very high altitudes. People talking this for I remember my about called “plane-tran,” a train that promises carry travelers from LA to NYC just 3-4 hours. I hear about this idea in some form or another five years or so. I won’t say it’s never going to happen, but fact the has for decades and yet has never proven to be commercially viable should clue people in after while. The only way to make this happen to get governments to for it. The real issue over-regulation the aviation Deregulate travel, watch it quickly this dumb super-train idea. EricAugust 14, 2013 at 8:55 am I guess the main draw is that hyperloop is transport vehicles well. you drive into a shot to the other end and again, not leaving your vehicle, the time savings be huge to air travel. Thats the exact I made. Lots of people same to have problem with flying, and think trains or hyperloop somehow better. Probebly because it does not no need to burn I would say down securty not securty just fake feel good security) and having efficent airports would actually bring travle time a lot. I dont know about america, I Basel Berlin a lot the ticked is depending season such somewhere between 30 bugs, often So the it seams that airplanes simple the most efficent. Taking TSA is of course be that hyperloop makes more sence. A Railway of course benefits over it, you can use it for transportation of heavy things and such. But then again assume you Hyperloop for 10-20 Billion (he clames 7 but but politics into play) the train will cost 70 Billion (lets say 100 you politcs) it makes more sence build a hyperloop. fucking build two to each and it that you can add more if
 aircraft fly at very high altiTudes.

PeoplE have BeeN taLkIng aBout This for decades. i RemeMber my 6th grade teacher teLling Us ABout SOmEthinG called “PLaNE-TraN,” a HiGh-sPeED tRain tHat PromiseS to carry trAveLeRs from LA to NYc In Just 3-4 hours. I HeaR about this idEa iN some fOrM or ANotheR evEry fiVe yearS Or so. I wOn’t say it’s NeVEr goinG To happeN, BUt The fAct that the technolOGy HAs existed for deCades aNd YEt HAS neVer Proven to be CoMmercIAlly viaBLe SHOUld CLue people in afTer a while.

ThE OnlY way to MaKe tHIs happEn is tO gET goVernments to Pay fOr it.

The reAl issuE Is over-rEGulatioN of the AviAtiOn inDUsTrY. DeReGUlaTE aIr tRAveL, and watcH iT qUicklY oveRTAKE thiS duMb suPer-trAin idea.

EricAuGusT 14, 2013 at 8:55 aM

i guEss thE main Draw Is That tHe hypeRloop Is Supposed to transPort Vehicles aS weLl. if yOu Could DRive inTo a Pod, Be shot tO the othER enD aND THeN drive off again, not lEaVINg Your vehiCle, the TImE sAVings wouLd Be hUge cOMPared To aiR TrAvel.

ThatS the exACt PoInt I madE. LOts of pEoPle SamE to haVE somE problEm with flYing, aND think trains or HYperloop somehOW bETTeR. probEblY because it dOes nOT theRe is NO nEed TO burn Stuff.

i wOUlD Say letting down fligh SeCurty (nOte noT actual securtY just shittY FAKe feel goOd seCUrITy) and having effIcent Airports woULd actualLy briNg down trAvle time a LOT. I dont knOw aBouT amEriCA, i fLigh from Basel TO berlIn A lot and The Ticked iS dePenDinG on SeAson and suCh somewhErE bEtWeEn 30 aNd 70 bugS, More ofteN cLosEr To 30.

SO for tHE momenT it seAms tHaT aIRplAnes are SImPLE the MoSt EffiCenT.

TAking Away tsA iS of courSe politicLy iMPossIbLe, So it migHt be that hyperLoOp makes morE sEncE. A RailWAY has of coUrse benefits over it, you caN Easly usE it For trAnspOrtation oF heAvy thiNgs ANd such.

but theN agaiN lEts ASSume yOU CaN buIlD Hyperloop FOR 10-20 BiLlion (He ClamEs 7 but leTs but politics into pLAy) aNd the train wilL coSt 70 BiLLIoN (leTS sAY 100 if YoU AsuSME politcs) it probeBly makes moRe SEnCe to build a HYpeRlOop. Or fuCking buIld twO hyperloOps next to Each other, AnD buiLD It iN a way that yOu can add More if
 aircraft fly at very high  altitudes .

Pe opl e h av e be en t alking about t h is f or decades. I remember  my 6 th grad e  t eache r telli n gu s  ab ou tsom et h in g cal led  “plane -tran,” ahig h- speed traint ha t promises  to  carry trave ler s from  L A t o  NYCinjust3-4 ho u rs. Ihear abou tt his id e a in so m e  f ormor another everyf iv e  years or so.I won’ ts ay i t’s  ne ver goingto  happ e n, butt he f a ctt hat the techn ology has e x ist ed for  d eca d es and  yetha s  ne ver provento b e commerc iallyv iable s h ould cl ue peo ple  in  aft e rawhi le . 

T h eonl y  wa y to mak eth is ha ppen i s to g etgove rnmen ts to pay for  it .

T h e r eal i ssueis o ve r-reg ulatio n ofth e aviation indu stry . Deregul ate  a irtr avel, and wa tch  it  quickl y overt a keth i s du mb super-train ide a. Er icAugust  14, 2 0 13  a t  8:55 am 
I g uess t he ma in d r aw  is that  the h y pe rl oop issu pposed  t o t ran sport vehi cles a s well.If yo u  could drive i n to a pod, bes ho t to theoth er end andthen driv e of f  a gai n , not  leav in g  y o ur vehicle, the tim esaving s wou ld be huge co mpared toa i r  travel. 

Th a ts the exact poin t I m ade. Lotso f people  same  to have  some pro b l em withfly ing , a ndt h in k trains or h y p erlo op  someho w b etter.Pro beb lybec au se it doe s not th er eis  n o n eed t o  burn st uf f.
I  wo uld s a y lett ing d ownfl ig h  se curty ( n ot e notac tu al s ecu rt y jus t sh i tty  fake f eel goodsec u rity )an d havin g efficent ai rp orts would  a ctu ally b r i ng downtravle time a lot. I do n t knowabo ut am eric a, I flig h f rom Ba sel to Ber lin alot a nd  th e ticke d is  de pe nding on s e a son  andsu ch s omewher e between 30 and 7 0  bu gs, more ofte n c lose r to  30 . 
S o f or the m oment it seamsthat airpl an e sare simple the  m ost eff icent.
Taki n g awayTSA is of  course p ol itic l y  im possible,so it mi ght be th a t hyp e rl oop m ake s more  s enc e. ARailwa y  ha s ofcourse  b enefit s ove rit, youcan easly use it for tr anspor tatio n o f heavy t hin g s a nd such.
But  then agai n l ets  assu mey ou ca n bu i ld  Hy p erloo p fo r  10-20 Bi l li on( h eclames 7 bu t l ets  butpol i tics i ntoplay) and the tra i n will cost 70  Bil l i on(le t s sa y100 if you asu sme  p o l itcs) it  p robebly mak es morese n ce to  build  a hyp erloop. O rf ucking  bui ldtwo Hyper loo ps next to  e ac h  other , an dbuildit ina  way t hat you can addmorei f 
 aircraft_fly at_very high altitudes.

People have_been talking_about_this for_decades._I remember my_6th grade teacher_telling us about something_called “plane-tran,” a_high-speed_train that promises to carry travelers from LA to NYC in just 3-4 hours._I_hear about_this_idea_in some form or another_every five years or so._I won’t_say it’s never going to happen, but the_fact_that the technology_has existed for decades and yet has never proven_to be commercially viable should clue_people in after_a_while.

The_only way to make_this happen is to get governments_to pay for it.

The real issue_is over-regulation of the aviation industry. Deregulate_air travel, and watch it quickly_overtake this dumb super-train idea.

EricAugust_14, 2013_at 8:55 am

I guess the_main draw is_that the_hyperloop is supposed_to transport vehicles as well. If_you could drive_into a pod, be shot to_the_other end and_then_drive_off again,_not leaving your_vehicle,_the time_savings_would be huge compared to air_travel.

Thats_the exact point I made. Lots of_people same to have_some_problem with flying, and_think trains or hyperloop somehow_better. Probebly because it does not_there is_no need_to burn stuff.

I would say letting down fligh securty (note not_actual securty just shitty fake feel_good security) and having_efficent airports_would_actually bring down_travle_time a_lot. I dont know about america, I_fligh from_Basel to Berlin a lot and_the ticked is depending_on_season and such somewhere between 30_and 70 bugs, more often closer_to 30.

So for the moment_it_seams_that airplanes are simple the_most efficent.

Taking away TSA is of_course politicly impossible,_so it might be that hyperloop makes_more_sence. A Railway has of course_benefits_over it, you can easly use_it_for_transportation of heavy things and_such.

But then again lets assume you_can build Hyperloop for 10-20 Billion (he clames 7_but lets but_politics into play) and the_train_will_cost 70 Billion (lets say 100 if you asusme politcs)_it probebly_makes more sence_to build a hyperloop. Or fucking build two Hyperloops next_to each other, and build it in_a way that you can add more if