Near Instant Transportation

[Ban]

Hey everyone.

Forgive me for the title, I was not quite sure what to call this idea.

As some of you might know, I am writing a story in a futuristic fifties setting. I have decided that one of the most significant achievements of the future is the invention of an underground transport system, which can send someone from New York to L.A within an hour and a half. To limit this invention slightly, I have decided that making this transport system is relatively expensive.
What I want to ask is how this transport system would change America, especially an America which has culturally stagnated since the 1950s. I imagine the largest cities to become even larger and smaller cities to shrink significantly. The countryside would likely become more lawless and detached from urban America.

Would the borders of the states be redrawn? How many people and what groups would not move to the cities? What else would change?

 

[Russ]

Hey everyone.

Forgive me for the title, I was not quite sure what to call this idea.

As some of you might know, I am writing a story in a futuristic fifties setting. I have decided that one of the most significant achievements of the future is the invention of an underground transport system, which can send someone from New York to L.A within an hour and a half. To limit this invention slightly, I have decided that making this transport system is relatively expensive.
What I want to ask is how this transport system would change America, especially an America which has culturally stagnated since the 1950s. I imagine the largest cities to become even larger and smaller cities to shrink significantly. The countryside would likely become more lawless and detached from urban America.

Would the borders of the states be redrawn? How many people and what groups would not move to the cities? What else would change?

I have not thought this through too deeply, but I don't think that faster transportation would make big cities bigger and empty the spaces in between.

People move to cities to be closer to jobs of various sorts, or leave farms as they become more automated and need less labour.

Would not faster transportation increase the spread if I can afford it? If my commute to the office gets faster, doesn't that mean I can now live say...200 miles from the office and still get to work in 15 minutes?

I would think faster transportation would make the countryside less detached, not more.

Just a first impression.

 

[skip.knox]

With the transport being expensive, and being underground, it would likely connect only the biggest cities. I don't see much impact on rural America. The biggest impact would probably be on air travel, at least between those hubs.

That underground system, is it for people only? Can it transport goods? On the same line?

An accident or a shut down would be really disruptive!

Out in the countryside, though, people would still use cars and trucks. They would still need to get their goods and services transported in traditional ways. The high-speed network might serve to further separate the wealthy elite in the cities from the common folk in the countryside. Especially if you tied communications to it.

I don't see any reason to re-draw states, but if you wanted to do that there are a bunch of articles online about proposed states (e.g., the State of Jefferson).

 

[Ban]

I'm sorry Russ I think I haven't explained properly. Due to the system being underground and expensive it would only link the big cities in America to eachother, thus excluding smaller cities.

Would not faster transportation increase the spread if I can afford it? If my commute to the office gets faster, doesn't that mean I can now live say...200 miles from the office and still get to work in 15 minutes?

That's an interesting thought. While someone from a smaller city would not be able to do this, I imagine someone in Chicago could work in New York and see his girlfriend in Miami on the same day with ease. That would integrate the Urban world significantly.

With the transport being expensive, and being underground, it would likely connect only the biggest cities.

Correct.

The system would be for people and goods, the transportation would work for both on the same line. There are only a few transport lines so the prices for transportation would not be very cheap, although I imagine someone with a moderate income to be able to travel the line to and from a city at least once a day without losing a significant amount of money.

I hadn't thought about shutdowns yet, thanks!

Out in the countryside, though, people would still use cars and trucks. They would still need to get their goods and services transported in traditional ways. The high-speed network might serve to further separate the wealthy elite in the cities from the common folk in the countryside. Especially if you tied communications to it.

I don't see any reason to re-draw states, but if you wanted to do that there are a bunch of articles online about proposed states (e.g., the State of Jefferson).

Those are some good suggestions. I like the idea of the countryside still functioning as it does today while the urbans (urbanites?) become more integrated and wealthy. I will also adopt the communications idea and read up on some of those proposed states.

 

[Penpilot]

I think a limiting factor is cost to consumer. I mean if the cost to use this thing is so high that Joe average can't use it on a regular basis, then I think impact will be minimal.

I'm thinking this because it's expensive to build, then it must be expensive to use, unless there are massive government subsidies. Which brings up the question if the government is willing to subsidise usage, why not construction to less significant areas.

I was thinking the Concorde as the closest thing we have/had. It could travel from NY to London England in 3.5 hrs. that's something like a 5500km distance. The distance from NY to LA is just under 4000km. The Concorde could do that in 2.5 hrs.

That's in the ballpark of the parameters you're laying out. And over it's history the Concorde didn't seem to me at least to impact significantly how regular people lived their lives. They just couldn't afford to use the Concorde.

Please don't think I'm being a naysayer. I'm just saying for this to make an impact, it probably needs to be affordable by Joe average. But if it's affordable by Joe average then it can't be that prohibitive in terms of building cost.

But then again, I could be out to lunch on this.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

Cost is important, but I think with the passage of time the costs come down. So initially the cost to set up the system might be so prohibitive that it could only be done between major cities. But over time the smaller cities would be linked up. Then the larger towns etc. Likewise the cost to consumers of using the service should reduce over time. So in the short term I would expect the establishment of a station(?) in one city might act as a draw card to that city and make it larger - more desirable for companies, industries and people to reside in. In the longer term that would be reversed and companies would move out to the smaller towns where they could commute. Cities would shrink and the rural areas would fill up as people bought nicer homes with bigger sections where they could have a "lifestyle".

This didn't happen with the Concord and in the end they only built I think six of them, but I suspectthat was more because of the immense costs and political accords needed to build the planes, and the feeling that once they were built no one had the political will to go to the next step. You could argue the same for the space shuttles.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Ban]

Thanks for the feedback Psychotick and Penpilot.

I want the system to only run between major cities and be affordable for the average Joe to use on a daily basis. To achieve this I will need a scarcity of transportlines but an abundance of passengerseats within these supermetros. I am thinking about how I could make this possible. Maybe these supermetros could work by being launched like a rocket, but can only run in a straight or nearly straight line because of it. This would make it so that every city needs to have its own system built to be connected to another city which would decrease the desire for regional governments to built these.

Would this work as a solution?

 

[CupofJoe]

Make it a relatively new technology.
Every transport system starts with only a few hubs and grows over time.
Large infrastructure take years if not decades to organise and build.
So unless your story spans generations it will seem like a fixed thing.

 

[Ban]

Yeah that could work. I was planning to make the system only about a decade or two old anyway.
Thanks Joe.

 

[Penpilot]

. Maybe these supermetros could work by being launched like a rocket, but can only run in a straight or nearly straight line because of it. This would make it so that every city needs to have its own system built to be connected to another city which would decrease the desire for regional governments to built these.

Would this work as a solution?

Yeah, I think that could work, but for me, it doesn't really crank my chain. But then again, it's your story.

If it were me, I'd look at making the limitations on where it goes political rather than technical. What I mean by this is keep the cost of the system high, but have it subsidised by the cities themselves. So only the most wealthy of cities can afford to not only build the system, but subsidise it so Joe average can use it.

So NY and LA could afford it because they have this large tax base, but small city America generally can't.

This also allows you to have big cities the system doesn't reach because no political will for it or poor tax base, and small cities where the system does reach because there is political will and the money to do it.

And to me, this creates a more interesting dynamic that you could exploit for story if you wanted to. Imagine a small town that has the system because a billionaire so happens to live there and subsidises it? What happens if that billionaire moves away?

Imagine a big city buckling under the pressure of having to subsidise such a system?

I'm just rambling here, but this could push the separation between the haves and have nots further. If a city with this system exploits it correctly, it can draw more travellers, could import and export things more efficiently, and generally has a bit of a leg up economically. They can draw in more diverse and more talented workers, because they don't have to live in that city to work there, pushing the economic leg up aspect of things further.

Sorry for the rant Feel free to ignore.

 

[Ban]

Ramble appreciated!
I like your reason a bit more than my own. As you said, it could really set up the story and world in interesting ways.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

Okay, two things spring to mind. First to achieve your goal of only having large centres connected, turn to basic economics. You want it arranged so that while the operating costs for the system are low, the creation system set up costs are huge - in short create a prohibitive cost barrier that makes it next to impossible for any city smaller than say a million tax payers to afford. So think mag lev trains, where the cost of running the train is small, but the cost of building the track is huge. (Track building costs are still going to decrease over time as technology advances and industries establish but you might get a ten or twenty year period where the conditions you want apply.)

Second go for something like a mag lev system. It can hall thousands of passengers at massive speeds, and in theory if you run it through a low friction / atmosphere tunnel doesn't wear out like a rocket system. You don't need massive acceleration either. You need a very high sustainable top speed.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Ban]

I like your ideas Psychotick. A Maglev-esque system would fit right into the world I'm building. It's futuristic enough to fit into the world, but realistic enough to make readers not question it too much hopefully.

So to summarize. I would have an underground Maglev-esque system with very high building costs, but very low maintenance costs. This would result in only the richest cities in America being able to build them, but once they are built everyone in those cities can cheaply use them.

If I'm not missing something, this system would not be illogical for the cities to build right? The potential gains in trade and movement of people should be enough for rich cities to build such an expensive transport system.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

Up to you. Depends on technology. I'd also look at the evacuated tubes option. This wiki seems to cover a lot about the costs. Maglev - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Russ]

I like your ideas Psychotick. A Maglev-esque system would fit right into the world I'm building. It's futuristic enough to fit into the world, but realistic enough to make readers not question it too much hopefully.

So to summarize. I would have an underground Maglev-esque system with very high building costs, but very low maintenance costs. This would result in only the richest cities in America being able to build them, but once they are built everyone in those cities can cheaply use them.

If I'm not missing something, this system would not be illogical for the cities to build right? The potential gains in trade and movement of people should be enough for rich cities to build such an expensive transport system.

There seems to be a hole in the logic that needs to be dealt with. As I understand it, the system runs underground and has high building costs for some reason. This doesn't really equate to only NY and LA etc being able to have the systems, it equates to NY< LA etc and everyone else along the route being able to use the system. IF you have to dig your tunnel for LA to NY, or even if you do it above ground and have to lay track, all you have to do to add even a small city along the route to the system is build a set of stairs and stop the train at that spot right?

It seems to me that it wouldn't prevent smaller cities from using those lines, but it might cause more communities to grow up around those lines if there is profit to be made.

 

[Ban]

You're right in that there would likely be at least a few stops in between. I should incorporate that in the story. However the main benefit of the system is its incredible speed. Lots of stops would significantly reduce that speed, making the system a lot less beneficial to the cities using them.

 

[Russ]

You're right in that there would likely be at least a few stops in between. I should incorporate that in the story. However the main benefit of the system is its incredible speed. Lots of stops would significantly reduce that speed, making the system a lot less beneficial to the cities using them.

The loss of speed by stops is kind of tricky. It depends on how long it takes to accelerate of decelerate and the energy cost involved. It is something you can work out if you develop your system that far.

The answer to that problem is just like what they do with trains today. They have trains that stop a lot, and express trains, each having their own strengths, costs and weaknesses.

 

[Ban]

That's true. I think for the sake of the story and world I will say that this system has a very slow acceleration and deceleration speed to justify the lack of stops on the way. The new capital of the USA is situated somewhere in the middle of the US, so I should probably locate that at the crossing point of a few of these supermetros and work out from there where the handful of other stops would be.

 

[Isasi]

Wealthy people would like have affairs in distant cities to more easily keep it hidden. There could be some sort of drug trade going from mexico straight to new york (smugglers and such). I'm focusing a lot on the vices, but those could be interesting

 

[Vaporo]

You're right in that there would likely be at least a few stops in between. I should incorporate that in the story. However the main benefit of the system is its incredible speed. Lots of stops would significantly reduce that speed, making the system a lot less beneficial to the cities using them.

Well, no matter what you'll have to have some kind of switch track leading off of the main track into the station. Otherwise, you'll have to slow down every train behind you for every stop. So, just let trains running an express route from New York to LA charge straight through while trains with nearer destinations just switch tracks at their stop.