|
|
|
Edmonton - Red Deer - Calgary Hyperloop | ?m | ?s | Transpod
- Thread starter KyleBlanchett
- Start date
kcantor
Senior Member
i don’t think there is enough population density or demand for hsr to be economical between edmonton and calgary but putting that aside, even if you had to replace the actual rails (something that is done on a regular basis anyway) that would still be much less expensive than constructing a complete parallel hyperloop over the same distance.
darwink
Senior Member
A string of demand studies disagrees with you. Calgary and Edmonton have way more traffic between them than if we were placed let’s say at two spots 300 km apart in the USA Midwest with other cities of similar size in all directions.
kcantor
Senior Member
or - more accurately - there have been some studies by parties with vested interests that are based on assumptions and projections that make absolutely no sense to me, going back to the van horne institute’s projections that if pricing was low enough hsr would have ridership totaling more than 100% of all north/south traffic currently driving and flying between edmonton and calgary and that nominal decreases in travel time would have logarithmic increases in ridership and frequency.
The_Cat
Senior Member
I wonder if the Hyperloop could be treated more like a highway compared to a railway. Have a standard modular car that could connect with other cars, and connect with other modules and travel on magnetic levitation. It could travel on tracks from AHD South to Red Deer and again from Red Deer to Stoney Trail North.
archited
Senior Member
^^^^ Elon Musk is proposing something like that for Los Angeles with his Boring Company. Multi-levels of underground roadways that would criss-cross throughout the City. All cars driving onto a maglev platform that would whisk the car to other sectors of the City -- https://www.boringcompany.com/
RH van der Rohe
New Member
I don't have numbers handy to support this claim but my bet is that we will see this first in areas where passenger train network is not already developed and where the existing highway capacity is not coping with demand. Texas (Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, Laredo and Houston), California (San Fran, LA, SD, Sacramento) or Florida (Miami, Jacksonville and everything in between) probably in that order. However my Texas friends think all rail is socialist and evil so we'll see.
Platinum107
Senior Member
Wow, imagine a city being so far down the hole of highway hell that building a multi-level underground hyperloop system to transport cars would make more sense than building a train line or metro...
archited
Senior Member
^^^^ Elon Musk was observing that pretty much ALL traffic grid solutions are planar and it is that reason that we have gridlock. He was simply devising something that is 3-dimensional rather than 2- Los Angeles (metro) has a population of 18+ million people (like half the population of all of Canada). On one of my LRT excursions in LA during morning rush, 3 trains passed fully-loaded without stopping to pick up additional passengers -- Laura has said that the same thing happens in NYC at peak usage hours -- but at least there the subway is on a separate plane. It is not hyperloop that Elon is proposing -- that is something altogether different -- he is trying to solve freeway gridlock. Today, L.A. has freeway gridlock, LRT gridlock, bus gridlock... you name it. Your big hate on cars is peaking through again... (it used to be that people hated the pollution-factor borne with cars; now it is the four letter word -- c-a-r-s). Your angst level will drop some if you simply come to the realization that private motor vehicles (electric) are not going away and the best traffic solutions employ cross-bred and multi-optional choices.
Platinum107
Senior Member
@archited I don’t “hate cars” at all actually, I just really dislike bad city planning that will force me to use one to do almost anything. Fine, if Elon Musk’s idea is what’s needed to solve the problem of L.A.’s (and other cities’) terrible suburban sprawl and linkage of clogged 12-lane highways then so be it I guess. I’d say I feel bad for them but at least cities like ours which only recently hit 1 million and aren’t too spread out have the opportunity to prevent needing to make solutions as massive and expensive as an underground 1000kph car ferry ⛴. We can utilize building new multi-leveled mass transit and building up a denser city around it, one that doesn’t sprawl out in a sea of single-family homes for miles and miles, so spread out that economic and social inequality spreads with it...
kcantor
Senior Member
^
except that’s a pretty dystopian view isn’t it?just about everyone who lives in that sea of single family homes is doing so because that’s their choice and many of them are living closer to their place of employment than if they were located more centrally and forced to adopt a life style of your choosing and not theirs.
yes, all of our activities as individuals and as a society should include all of the costs of those decisions - and that may influence some of those decisions - but that’s not the same thing.
except that’s a pretty dystopian view isn’t it?just about everyone who lives in that sea of single family homes is doing so because that’s their choice and many of them are living closer to their place of employment than if they were located more centrally and forced to adopt a life style of your choosing and not theirs.
yes, all of our activities as individuals and as a society should include all of the costs of those decisions - and that may influence some of those decisions - but that’s not the same thing.
Platinum107
Senior Member
@kcantor You know the saying “too much of anything is bad for you”? Just like I don’t hate cars I don’t hate single family homes either (I mean I live in one, so like...), but when it’s the vast majority of housing being built it kills the “urban-ness” of a city and leaves, well, a sea of houses, roads, and strip malls that has nothing that intriguing or inspired about it. Look, if that’s where somebody truly wants to live and where they believe they’d feel successful then they have all the freedom to go for it, but I believe that the image of what most people view as a good place to live is susceptible to change with trends and our societal values, and this change is happening now. The interest in more dense housing options, good public transit, and the whole urban-lifestyle by people who would’ve chosen the suburbs other wise is growing larger each day. You can see this in examples of suburbs that were planned with density (townhouses, 2-4-6-8-plexes, low-mid rise buildings, etc.) , good transit and an overall more urban feel in mind, such as Blatchford or Greisbach here in Edmonton (They aren’t suburbs exactly but they are greenfield development nonetheless).
archited
Senior Member
^^^^ "the new urbanism" is the name for what you are describing -- now some 50 years old -- https://www.cnu.org/resources/what-new-urbanism
Last edited:
Platinum107
Senior Member
archited
Senior Member
There are better ways @Platinum107 -- Main Street Focus with density falling away from the Main Street. A study in the last few years showed that 12 city blocks is about the extent that the most ambitious shopper can negotiate in a single visit. It kind of is verified in developed areas like Old Strathcona. I guess what I am trying to say is that there is no simple formula (not to say that architects and planners don't keep trying -- and some of them are very "trying"). And there has to be the proper elemental mix -- entertainment with retail with hospitality with apartments and condos -- some get it right and some get it entirely wrong (we don't need any more Levittowns). I may have mentioned this to you before, but a good starting point for understanding is Jane Jacobs' book "The Death and Life of Great American Cities".