It was only hyped because it was "cool".
If the hyperloop, however it works, can duplicate the capabilities of a high speed rail system in terms of passenger throughput, speed, and waiting time and do so safely at much lower cost then even if was the uncoolest thing in the world it would still be of immense practical benefit.
Metrics are like statistics, in that they can also mislead. It's really about the experience in specific contexts.
> It was only hyped because it was "cool".
Actually, it failed because it just looked dorky. (Which Steve Jobs predicted in his secret meeting with Dean Kamen.) Good tech badly marketed sometimes still doesn't sell.
"What does everyone think about the design?" asked Doerr, switching subjects.
"What do you think?" said Jobs to Tim. It was a challenge, not a question.
"I think it's coming along," said Tim, "though we expect—" "I think it sucks!" said Jobs.
His vehemence made Tim pause. "Why?" he asked, a bit stiffly.
"It just does."
"In what sense?" said Tim, getting his feet back under him. "Give me a clue."
"Its shape is not innovative, it's not elegant, it doesn't feel anthropomorphic," said Jobs, ticking off three of his design mantras.
"You have this incredibly innovative machine but it looks very traditional." The last word delivered like a stab.
...
"Screw the lead times. You don't have a great product yet! I know burn rates are important, but you'll only get one shot at this, and if you blow it, it's over."
It cost many times more than even high end bicycles, without being faster, without being able to be used on streets, without having as much cargo capacity, and while depriving you of exercise.
It cost many times more than a scooter, while being slower, having far less range, less cargo capacity, and not being usable on streets.
And so on.
If it had cost $200 it might have had a chance to find a niche, but at $3k or so it's just a toy.
It cost many times more than a scooter, while being slower, having far less range, less cargo capacity, and not being usable on streets.
What you are saying highlights the reason it failed, while missing the point of the device.
It was not for the bicycle use case. It was not meant to be faster or to be used on the streets. You can carry a couple of modest panniers worth of cargo, and touring-bike loads would again be besides the point. It was meant to deprive you of exercise.
The Segway was meant to create a "new" use case and market segment in the same way that the iPhone and iPad did. (You can find plenty of objections analogous to the ones you list for the iPhone and iPad.) In that kind of context, dorky is going to kill you.
at $3k or so it's just a toy.
What Steve Jobs understood was that it's okay to start out as a toy when creating a new market segment. However, you have to be cool enough while being cheap enough. The Segway had a too high a price point and a too low of a cool factor.
You may have a different opinion. It gets brought up because not all of the world shares your opinion.
Generally the TSA x-rays my bags looking for weapons and makes me walk through a metal detector, then I go on my way. Sometimes the line is 15-20 minutes, though usually it's less than 5. Sometimes there's a millimeter wave body scanner that some might find intrusive - personally I couldn't care less if a TSA employee sees my junk, and those that object can opt for a pat down. Those that object to being touched might be better served by a therapist than a plane ride.
This objection to flying because of the TSA is a psychological problem on your part and has nothing to do with reality. Unless you are carrying prohibited items - knives, liquids, etc - you will almost never encounter a problem with the TSA. Sure, the rule may be arbitrary and ridiculous, but they are not particularly onerous or oppressive either. I certainly make comments on bad policies and advocate for change. The system is nowhere close to the gestapo crazies seem to make it out to be.
Of course, you're likely psychotically obsessed so this will mean nothing to you, but get some help.
Your claim that they do not treat people as criminals because you don't mind or encounter trouble is laughable. Some of us don't have a case of Stockholm Syndrome to sooth the abuse.
Of course as someone who sympathizes with and advocates for your aggressors you won't understand where I am coming from, but get some help.
"I'm going to feel with my glove inside your waistband now..."
"It's rather clear you have no idea what criminals are treated like."
TSA have always treated me and everyone I know decently. Airport security is basically the same as it was 30 years ago. It's really disgusting and irresponsible to attack the TSA for carefully and respectfully enforcing regulations. I have no problem attacking idiotic regulations and regulators.
And, of course, there's the taxpayer money wasted—if we're going to employ that many people it may as well be doing something useful rather than attempting to stop all possible methods of bringing down an explosive tin can tens of thousands of feet in the air.
If it's using the air-hockey principle, I'd expect reduced forward pressure to below the limit on which the vehicle can float, so it starts to skid along the ground, hopefully with enough inter-car spacing that you don't get a pileup.
A less catastrophic situation might be, what happens if the pipe has a relatively minor leak due to subsidence or whatever? Just a loss of efficiency, or loss of function?