As Hyperloop Projects Advance, So Do Calls for Subsidies
Trump's infrastructure proposal includes $20 billion for projects like the Hyperloop.

The idea of connecting America's cities via Hyperloop—a high-speed train propelled at breakneck speeds through vacuum tunnels—is being taken increasingly seriously. So is the possibility that the technology will get taxpayer support.
Just this week, Elon Musk's Boring Company secured a construction permit from the District of Columbia as part of its plans to build a Hyperloop line between the nation's capital and nearby Baltimore. The company had already received a permit to dig a 10-mile tunnel for the project from the Maryland Department of Transportation.
In the Midwest, meanwhile, the company Hyperloop Transportation Technologies inked an agreement with the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) and the Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency to study the feasibility of a Hyperloop between Chicago and Cleveland.
So far, these projects have not relied on government support. An IDOT spokesperson has stressed that no state finding was involved in the deal. In Maryland, Transportation Secretary Pete Rahn told local radio station WAMU, "The development of this project is being done entirely by the Boring Company and has zero state and federal dollars. This is a private company undertaking a project with private funds."
But as these projects progress, taxpayer dollars may soon follow.
In January, a bipartisan group of U.S. representatives from Illinois, Ohio, and Pennsylvania sent a letter to President Donald Trump urging him to spend $20 million creating a Hyperloop Transportation Initiative. Last year, the Ohio State Legislature passed a resolution expressing support for the same idea.
Hyperloop Transportation Technologies' press release about its feasibility study cites both the letter and the resolution favorably.
It would be easy to dismiss all this as empty talk were it not for the president's infrastructure package. Of the $200 billion in federal spending that Trump has proposed as part of the deal, $20 billion would be reserved for "transformative projects," described as "ambitious, exploratory, and ground-breaking project ideas that have significantly more risk than standard infrastructure projects, but offer a much larger reward profile."
Projects that fit this description could get as much as 30 percent of their demonstration costs, 50 percent of their planning costs, and a full 80 percent of their construction costs from the feds.
If that idea is included in the final legislative package, it's not hard to imagine the money landing in the pockets of Hyperloop project sponsors. White House advisers have already personally expressed their support for Musk's Hyperloop projects.
If that happens, it will be a shame—not just for Hyperloop skeptics but for Hyperloop fans.
The technology is still very much in its infancy. Prototypes have achieved speeds of only 240 miles per hour, despite promises that future Hyperloop vehicles will reach upward of 700 miles per hour. Dumping huge amounts of federal money on such a speculative technology risks costing taxpayers a bundle for an idea that turns out to be a dud.
And even if Hyperloops do prove to be part of our transportation future, public money always comes with strings attached. Otherwise economically feasible projects could be derailed by layers of regulation and politically expedient changes.
Something similar happened with California's high-speed rail. What was once supposed to be a straight rail line from San Francisco to Los Angeles was, thanks to politically motivated demands, rerouted through the state's Central Valley, creating all sorts of complications, delays, and cost overruns.
Government officials should let the technology evolve, not try to transform it with a ton of tax dollars.
Rent Free is a weekly newsletter from Christian Britschgi on urbanism and the fight for less regulation, more housing, more property rights, and more freedom in America's cities.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
...$20 billion would be reserved for "transformative projects," described as "ambitious, exploratory, and ground-breaking project ideas that have significantly more risk than standard infrastructure projects, but offer a much larger reward profile."
Teleportation or nothing.
Super Giant Trebuchet's
Super giant trebuchet's what?
Super giant trebuchet's have more fun.
the name of his band.
Watch your mouth, Frenchie!
replicators (Star Trek not Stargate)
HOW IS THAT TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE? Set phasers to Pay Attention!
No need to travel. Think of the savings! It would require major power upgrades to handle all the rednecks replicating things to shoot.
Transporters and replicators are based on the same technology. Doesn't everybody know this?!
So Elon gets a permit to dig 10 miles of tunnel, but a dude can't build an apartment building in SF?
That guy is a complete asshole though, he's not even hyper wealthy.
Otherwise economically feasible projects could be derailed by layers of regulation and politically expedient changes.
Money will be funnelled away from potentially-profitable East Coast hyperloops to build hyperloops in North Dakota and Alaska, you watch.
You want another Amtrak? This is how you get another Amtrak.
Dude, it's nothing like Amtrak. For instance, no Amtrak train ever derailed at upwards of 700 mph.
I think it happened once or twice, but conductor was union.
That could be really awesome, depending.
No Amtrak brake failure ever turned every single passenger into human meat jelly.
I, too, was a sociopath that sent people careening to their death in Roller Coaster Tycoon.
Pfff, in my day I did it for realz with toy trains.
Ler it compete with California's choo choo for all that Central Valley business.
There really is no more efficient way to move people than trains running through thousands of miles of vacuum pressure tunnels.
Or you could just stay home.
"...240 miles per hour..."
Oh my God, please no state-sponsored Hyperloop nonsense. We're already $20 trillion in the hole.
Maglev is a thing that does not require vacuum tubes. I'm pretty sure they are comfortably over 300mph in Japan.
Planes are comfortably above 500 MPH already.
Right, and they don't need tracks.
Magic.
One thing that people forget when comparing us to Japan is that the geography is quite different. First, the entire nation is about the size of Montana. Second, 10% of the population lives in one city. (If you count by region, then the Kanto region is actually about 1/3 of the entire population).
And also the Shinkansen is a private train as well (I think, correct me here if wrong).
Oh absolutely. The US is huge. People always point to the adoption of public transit in Europe, too. It's just not feasible in the US except maybe in dense coastal regions. If it has too many stops, like the Acela Express, it'll offset any gains made by being high-speed.
I think the Shinkansen is run by at least two different private businesses. I also could be wrong, though.
DC can't even maintain their metro well enough to not catch on fire multiple times a year.
I'm sure vacuum tubes would be no problem, though.
Can't have no fires in a vacuum.
WMATA could.
This is a damn good comment.
Are you a politician?
Maryland wants to build one of those too.
Then Maryland residents can pay for it their damn selves.
But, you see, it would provide transport for government employees. Subsidizing it benefits us all, just like the $260/month that they currently get for commuting and parking.
Do they really get a subsidy for travel expenses?
This is a good opportunity for me to plug one of my favorite factoids.
Yes, federal employees receive a transit subsidy each month. Years ago, back when the subsidy was converted to paper farecards, some who didn't need the full subsidy where caught selling the excess at a discount.
Why do we need to connect american cities at all? This isn't the 1800s... no one really cares from going from downtown LA to downtown San Francisco. Those places are shitholes anyway.
- Steve from San Jose
Someone is awarding a contract for a mass-transit system which has so far 'transited' exactly zero people for all of zero miles.
And some other people voted for the people who are doing the awarding.
Musk is a genius!
Hyperloop between Chicago and Cleveland.
Alex, what is the most expensive way to go from bad to worse?
Add a stop in Gary.
Detroit to Flint?
But as these projects progress where Musk goes, taxpayer dollars may soon follow.
He needs to consolidate his projects into rocket powered cars that travel through underground tubes.
And people just keep harping on that 240mph number without any context. That 240 mph number is them maxing out the first test track with ease. They literally can't go faster than that without adding another mile of track. They hit that milestone so easily that it is reasonable to assume they will be faster than magjevs by the next iteration.
"An IDOT spokesperson has stressed that no state finding was involved in the deal."
Be Honest.
How many others read that as "An IDIOT spokesperson ..."
*Raises hand*
"transformative projects," described as "ambitious, exploratory, and ground-breaking project ideas that have significantly more risk than standard infrastructure projects, but offer a much larger reward profile."
So we seek to offload the significant risks by mulcting the taxpayers and maximizing the returns to political officeholders by maximizing donors' profits....
I wonder what happens when one of the passenger pods explosively decompresses in 500 miles of vacuum tube.
I'm also not sure I'd want to ride inside a thermos bottle that has no way to reject heat. Hell, one of the meeting rooms at my office gets uncomfortably warm with only six people in it after about 10 minutes if you don't preemptively turn the AC on max and the room is plenty large enough for 18-20 people. Did I mention that AC doesn't work in a vacuum?