That's a very interesting take on fighting congestion. I personally feel that the hyperloop would serve better as a long distance means of transportation, while the tunnels would be mostly confined to cities and metropolitan areas.
You could probably travel in either, but the difference is construction time. Drilling the tunnels and setting up supports takes much longer than building an above ground tube, so it's unlikely to see many tunnels outside of large population areas.
You would need some large tubes to serve that amount of traffic. At that pace if you are burrowing it underground, you're basically still building a tunnel. It's very unlikely there could be mass volume on a normal sized hyperloop tube using individual cars.
there is NO REASON the hyperloop has to be long distance.
imagine..
That's a very interesting take on fighting congestion. I personally feel that the hyperloop would serve better as a long distance means of transportation, while the tunnels would be mostly confined to cities and metropolitan areas.
what's the difference?
why not have a personal vehicle that will travel in either?
You could probably travel in either, but the difference is construction time. Drilling the tunnels and setting up supports takes much longer than building an above ground tube, so it's unlikely to see many tunnels outside of large population areas.
no reason there has to be tunnels at all.
just tubes.
a tube could be run anywhere a power line or telephone cable is run.
OR
put it together on the surface then plow it under.
the interstate medians are just sitting there.
You would need some large tubes to serve that amount of traffic. At that pace if you are burrowing it underground, you're basically still building a tunnel. It's very unlikely there could be mass volume on a normal sized hyperloop tube using individual cars.
already been done..
we just pump natural gas thru them.
not to mention aqueducts and oil pipelines...