Originally Posted by
tandempower
The way to build it 'soon,' would be to do it on half of i95 and divert the funds that would go toward highway renovations to hyperloop instead. It would be like a trade-in instead of buying a new vehicle in order to get a kickback from the dealer to pay off your old one. The i95 corridor probably has too many curves to have super high speed rail, though, so they might have to run it at around 200mph instead of faster. As it matures, they may be able to increase the average speed gradually and that may also result in straightening the routes out by adding new tubes where the curves are.
I think it is highly unlikely that people will be willing to give up half of I95, though, so I wouldn't start investing yet. Maybe after a few years of recession, people will start to see the light on moving away from ubiquitous automotive transit, but we'll be lucky if there isn't another auto bailout/stimulus program that emerges to undermine the reform consciousness that will be growing strong by that time.
If the hyperloop only goes 200 mph it would only be useful at distances under 200 miles. After that, air travel would be far more attractive. So it's not worth building it unless it runs at least as fast as air travel, but at that speed, it would have the advantage that you don't need a massive airport as a terminal.
Looking at the math I did earlier, I realized that turns are easier on passengers than vertical dips and crests, so even if it runs along the surface, it will probably need to cut through hills or ridges via tunnels or rock cuts. Which do you think is more destructive to nature - a long hidden underground route, or a series of exposed rock cuts through surface landforms?