IN THE FIELD OF TECHNOLOGYDEGREE PROJECT VEHICLE ENGINEERINGAND THE MAIN FIELD OF STUDYINDUSTRIAL MANAGEMENT,SECOND CYCLE, 30 CREDITS

, STOCKHOLM SWEDEN 2018

Hyperloop in SwedenEvaluating Hyperloops Viability in the Swedish Context

FREDRIK MAGNUSSON

FREDRIK WIDEGREN

KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGYSCHOOL OF INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT

INOM TEKNIKOMRÅDETEXAMENSARBETE FARKOSTTEKNIKOCH HUVUDOMRÅDETINDUSTRIELL EKONOMI,AVANCERAD NIVÅ, 30 HP

, STOCKHOLM SVERIGE 2018

Hyperloop i SverigeUtvärdering av Hyperloops Möjligheter i den Svenska Kontexten

FREDRIK MAGNUSSON

FREDRIK WIDEGREN

KTHSKOLAN FÖR INDUSTRIELL TEKNIK OCH MANAGEMENT

Master of Science Thesis TRITA-ITM-EX 2018:381

Hyperloop in Sweden

Evaluating Hyperloops Viability in the Swedish Context

Fredrik Magnusson and Fredrik Widegren

Approved

2018-06-11

Examiner

Jannis Angelis

Supervisor

Mats Engwall

Commissioner

PA Consulting

Contact person

Åsa Hansson

Abstract

Examensarbete TRITA-ITM-EX 2018:381

Hyperloop i Sweden

Utvärdering av Hyperloops Möjligheter i den Svenska Kontexten

Fredrik Magnusson och Fredrik Widegren

Godkänt

2018-06-11

Examinator

Jannis Angelis

Handledare

Mats Engwall

Uppdragsgivare

PA Consulting

Kontaktperson

Åsa Hansson

Sammanfattning

Forewords and Acknowledgements

This thesis has been conducted as the completion of the master program Industrial Manage-ment (TINEM) at KTH, The Royal Institute of Technology. The project spanned from Januaryto June 2018 and was written at the Department of Industrial Engineering and Managementat KTH and the company PA Consulting. The Industrial Management programme focus onmanagerial and strategical challenges and endeavors faced within industrial and technical or-ganizations. And this thesis relates to this field by investigating disruptive technologies andthe encounters met when diffusing complex innovations on the market.

First and foremost, we would like to thank our supervisors Asa Hansson (PA Consulting)and Mats Engwall (Department of Industrial Economics and Management, KTH) for theirguidance and support throughout the process of conducting this project. Further, we want toacknowledge Jannis Angelis which has been our seminar leader and examiner, as well as ourseminar group, for providing valuable and constructive feedback for improving this paper. Inaddition, we would like to thank our project commissioner PA Consulting for assisting andsupporting us in the process as well as providing valuable insights in the field. And lastly, wesend our gratitude to the persons that participated in the study through interviews for sparingtheir time and sharing their expertise for the benefit of this thesis.

Fredrik Magnusson and Fredrik Widegren, June 2018

i

Contents

Nomenclature v

1 Introduction 1

1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.2 Research Problem and Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1.3 Expected Contribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1.4 Delimitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2 Theoretical Field 6

2.1 Disruptive Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2.2 Diffusion of Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2.3 Characteristics of Diffusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.4 Technical Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

2.5 Transformational Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

2.6 Window of Opportunity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

2.7 Multi-Level Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

3 Method 26

3.1 Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

3.2 Ishikawa Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

3.3 Technology Readiness Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

3.4 Research Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

4 The Hyperloop Technology 38

4.1 The Hyperloop Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

4.2 Performance Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

4.3 Challenges and Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

ii

5 Hyperloop and the Market 65

5.1 Market Acceptance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

5.2 Market Segmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

5.3 Travel Trends and Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

5.4 Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

5.5 Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

5.6 High-Speed Rail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

6 The Swedish Perspective 74

6.1 Government and Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

6.2 The Swedish Transport Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

6.3 The Swedish Society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

6.4 Hyperloop in Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

6.5 The National Negotiation on Housing and Infrastructure (Sverigeforhandlingen) 97

6.6 Implications on Hyperloop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

7 Analysis and Discussion 101

7.1 Technology Readiness Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

7.2 Characteristics of Diffusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

7.3 Multi-Level Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

8 Conclusion 143

8.1 How technically ready is the hyperloop technology and what uncertainties arethere? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

8.2 What boundaries exists on the Swedish market for a technology like hyperloop? 145

8.3 Can hyperloop enter the Swedish market? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

8.4 What determines if hyperloop can emerge as a viable transport alternative inSweden? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

8.5 Implications, Sustainability & Ethical Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

iii

8.6 Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152

References 154

Appendix I: Description of the Interviewees I

iv

Nomenclature

HSR High-Speed Rail

HTT Hyperloop Transportation Technologies

LTS Large socio-Technical System

Maglev Magnetic levitation

MLP Multi-Level Perspective

NNHI National Negotiation on Housing and Infrastructure(Sverigeforhandlingen)

ST-Administration The Swedish Transport Administration

ST-Agency The Swedish Transport Agency

TRL Technology Readiness Level

TT Technical Transition

VTI National Road and Transport Research Institute

v

1 Introduction

In this chapter the introduction emphasizes how an increasingly global society puts pressureon the efficiency of current modes of transportation and how the demand of faster and moreenvironmental sufficient transportation modes could represent a window of opportunity fornew technologies, such as hyperloop, to emerge on the market. Based on this, the generalresearch background of the paper is presented, which later on is narrowed down to a moreconcrete Research Problem and Purpose of the study. Subsequently, the formulation of onemain research question and three sub research questions that the paper intends to answer isspecified. Furthermore, the expected contribution complemented by the necessary delimitationsof the study is delineated.

1.1 Background

Today’s increasingly global society induce pressure on the efficiency of current modes of trans-portation, as transportation is in the heart of globalization. The engine of the economy andway of life is today in many terms based in larger cities (ITF, 2009). In these regions, trans-portation is an essential facilitator, and is required to offer the ability for people and goodsto move quicker, safer, cheaper and more efficient. The role of transportation is becoming anincreasingly important in society and has a prominent part in business, citizens lives as wellas in the world economy (ITF, 2009; Palacin, 2016). Estimates predict that the demand forhigh-speed transport will increase to 41% of the total market share by 2050. Which togetherwith an overall growth of the transportation market and demand for low prices, stresses thetechnology restrictions in current transport system (Decker et al., 2017).

Further, as the transportation sector is one of the major contributors to greenhouse gas emis-sions, responsible for 14% of the emissions globally, the pressure towards diffusion of greenertechnologies increases on the market (Shaheen and Lipman, 2007). As the society demandsmore sustainable transport solutions, complemented by the increased environmental awarenessof the customers when choosing mode of transportation, environmental aspects has emergedas a prominent determiner (Curry and Hughes, 2012; Peterson, 2010). Hence, a transforma-tion pressure towards alternative solutions is emerging and the expectations on these could beconsidered high amongst travelers (Van Goeverden et al., 2017; Peterson, 2010).

As current modes of transportation try to adapt their commercial, social and environmentalperformances to the transformational pressures, they tend to struggle due to restrictions in theirtechnologies. Consequently, only marginal rather than radical improvements can be achieved.Moreover, in an era where transport technologies such as driverless vehicles are emerging, thefuture role of conventional railways in the 21st-century mobility landscape could be questioned.And while aviation currently is the most viable transport mode for long-distance travel, itsefficiency on shorter trips is drastically decreased due to upfront inefficiencies such as check-in,airport commute and holding patterns (Decker et al., 2017).

Hence, if a new radical innovation could prove competitive in relation to the travel timesof aviation, the attractiveness of that technology would likely be very high. However, newtechnologies whom offer significantly improved performances are rare and have not yet managedto successfully enter the conservative transportation market (Van Goeverden et al., 2017). Still,an emerging window of opportunity for such alternatives can be observed due to the pressure

1

towards faster and more environmentally sustainable transportation (Van Goeverden et al.,2017).

When it comes to paradigm shifts in technology, and in particular for the context of infras-tructure, these are always related to large challenges, both to the existing infrastructure andto the implementation of the new technologies (Tongur and Engwall, 2014). Van Goeverdenet al. (2017) argues that a new transport system does not necessarily need to outperform in allaspects, but rather, taking all the relevant perspectives of the service into account, it shouldprovide added value in terms of benefits to its users. And as history has shown, alternativetravel modes can threaten the existing ones, if they can convince the market that the keyaspects: speed, accessibility and price competitiveness are met. In the last centuries, newtechnologies have successfully substituted or complemented the old ones when they have beenable to meet these three requirements (Peterson, 2010).

In that context, one new, potentially game changing, innovation in transportation is hyper-loop, a new technology that is expected to have superior performance to both High-SpeedRail (HSR) and aviation, in respect to travel time, costs and energy consumption (Deckeret al., 2017; Van Goeverden et al., 2017). Elon Musk, a well-known business magnate andinnovator, delivered a promising conceptualization for how this idea could become a realityand presented the initial architecture behind hyperloop in 2013. This potential fifth mode oftransportation was met with great enthusiasm from the public (Werner et al., 2016). Teamsof entrepreneurs, investors and innovators has since then formed companies competing to re-alize the hyperloop technology. The most recognized of which are Virgin Hyperloop One andHyperloop Transportation Technologies (HTT).

The hyperloop concept entails sending levitated vessels, with electric pulsion technology,through low-pressure tubes at very high speeds, near Mach 1 or 1224km/h (Yang et al., 2017).This is expected to result in an efficient and environmentally sustainable transport mode forshort and medium range travel (Decker et al., 2017). The technology enables external energystorage, significantly reducing the weight and complexity of the vessels. And operates in aclosed environment, making it weather independent (Decker et al., 2017). The hyperloop con-cept is however still in a critical conceptual phase, with many uncertainties surrounding thetechnology. And while physical test facilities have been built, the physical tests have yet todeliver concrete evidence of the predicted superior performance (Van Goeverden et al., 2017).

In a Swedish context, the overall transport policy goal is to ensure a socio-economically efficientand long-term sustainable transport supply for citizens and industry throughout the country(Regeringskansliet, 2017). Investments in infrastructure require long-term prospects, and toensure fulfillment of the policy goals the Swedish government are currently investigating whereand in what technologies to invest. However, the focus of their investments has so far beendirected towards incremental improvements in the railways, while using the air travel as acomplementary mode for high-speed transportation. This will likely be insufficient to fulfillan environmental sustainable transportation network in Sweden in a longer perspective. TheSwedish government must therefore expand their search beyond HSR and aviation, and includeexploration of new technologies, to ensure investing in the most long-term sustainable transportsolution.

2

1.2 Research Problem and Purpose

As one of the new technologies emerging in the transport industry, hyperloop could prove tomeet demand for faster, cheaper, safer and more environmentally efficient transportation. Thecompanies developing the technology has aggressive and optimistic predictions for when thefirst full-scale system will be ready. However, the technology is still surrounded by major uncer-tainties and there are many obstacles to overcome before hyperloop can become a commercialreality. The early state of the hyperloop technology together with the limited knowledge of thetechnology in Sweden makes it difficult to predict if hyperloop can become a viable transportalternative on the Swedish market.

The purpose of this paper is to address this field by giving an overarching understandingof the Swedish transport market dynamics, together with a comprehensive evaluation of thehyperloop concept. And hence contribute to more inclusive knowledge and understanding ofhyperloop’s viability in the Swedish context. And from this, the following research questionhas been delineated:

What determines if hyperloop can emerge as a viable transport alternative in Sweden?

To address this question, several aspects needs to be explored. First, it is necessary to derivethe state of the technical development, outlining the maturity of the concept together withthe uncertainties still surrounding it. Subsequently, the Swedish market must be examined torecognize the obstacles that exists for technologies like hyperloop to reach commercial prac-tice. And finally, this paper entails exploring the possibilities for hyperloop to overcome theseobstacles and hence enter the Swedish market. Founded in these three subfields, the followingquestions has been formulated:

1. How technically ready is the hyperloop technology and what uncertainties are there?

2. What boundaries exists on the Swedish market for a technology like hyperloop?

3. Can hyperloop enter the Swedish market?

1.3 Expected Contribution

This paper aims to contribute to the understanding of how far the development of the new modeof transportation, hyperloop, has reached and clarify the critical obstacles that needs to besurpassed in order for this technology to penetrate the market. Additionally, the research aimsto contribute to a holistic, critically evaluated, assessment of the compatibility and necessityof a solution like hyperloop on the Swedish market, as well as provide insight to if hyperloopcould become a viable alternative transport solution in Sweden.

To date, significant research has been done on the feasibility of different routes and poten-tial technological solutions for hyperloop. However, the current status of the technologicaldevelopment is lesser known, and as the progress evolves rapidly this is continuously chang-ing. Moreover, the specific perspective of the Swedish market, its requirements and demand

3

for alternative transport solutions has not been comprehensively studied, especially not withrespect to hyperloop.

Concludingly, the study aims to make an analytical contribution by analyzing the Swedishtransport market with respect to hyperloop. Where the empirical data gathered is processedthrough to relevant theoretical fields of technology diffusion and adoption. Further, the studycould provide an empirical contribution as empirics can shed light on new important insights forthe potential diffusion of hyperloop, as well as the dynamics of the Swedish transport market.In addition, this paper is expected to act as a valuable source of information for actors involvedwith the hyperloop technology as well as for the dominant actors on the Swedish transportmarket. The Swedish government and authorities could use the material in this thesis in theirprocess of evaluating hyperloop as an alternative mode of transportation to invest in.

1.4 Delimitations

This paper intends to give an overarching understanding of the dynamics of the Swedishtransportation market and how this influence the opportunity for hyperloop to emerge as aviable alternative in Sweden. The subject is tremendous and the complex nature of marketdynamics for infrastructure projects makes it impossible to comprehensively cover all aspectswithin the scope of a master’s thesis, hence some delimitations was necessary.

The study is delimited to give an overview of the dynamics on the Swedish transportationmarket, including several perspectives. Hence, each individual perspective has not been studiedin depth. Although this arguably could add additional value and be of interest for the analysisand conclusions, it is left out for further research. To give an understanding of the Swedishmarket, the perspectives have been restricted to consider politicians, transportation authorities,the research community and Nordic based companies involved with the technology in Sweden.One possibly important actor that has not been covered by the interviews is actors from theSwedish industry. This delimitation can be motivated by their limited involvement in thehyperloop technology.

Moreover, when it comes to hyperloops competitiveness in relation to other modes of trans-portation, the perspective has been delimited to mainly focus on the relation to High-SpeedRail (HSR) technology. This focus is justified as the political discussions and infrastructureplanning in Sweden currently is focused on HSR. The competitive nature of hyperloop is how-ever complemented by a brief perspective of the aviation industry.

4

Chapter Summary

In this chapter a brief background to the field of research which this paper aims to explore ispresented. Namely how the demand of faster, more efficient and environmental sustainabletransportation modes generates transformational pressure on current transport system. Byshedding light on how these transformational pressures in the Swedish context can generatea window of opportunity for new alternative modes of transportation, such as hyperloop, toemerge on the Swedish market, the specific problem which this paper address was delineated.The purpose and contribution of this paper is to give an improved understanding of the hyperloopconcept and the dynamics of the Swedish transportation market, for a future possible diffusionof hyperloop. The purpose and problem formulation served as a foundation for formulating themain research question, which was further complemented by three sub questions, articulated ina manner that the answers to these questions provides insights to the main question. In thefinal sections of this chapter, the expected contribution together with the necessary delimitationsmade to narrow the scope of the study are presented and clarified.

5

2 Theoretical Field

In this chapter the theoretical field is mapped out to develop a good foundation for understandingthe scientific field and processing the empirical material. The chapter introduce the importanttheoretical concepts and frameworks, found in previous research, that has been considered whenanalyzing the data and outlining conclusions from the gathered empirics. A good overview of thechallenges and opportunities connected to the field of disruptive technologies, and in particularthe diffusion and adoption of innovation and technology is presented. From exploring this field,the framework ’Characteristics of Diffusion’ is recognized as especially significant in literature.These theories are further complemented by an examination of the concepts socio-technicaltransition, transformational pressure and window of opportunity to connect set the diffusionof disruptive technologies to context of the society. As this set of relations is tremendouslycomplex the ‘Multi-Level Perspective’ framework is introduced to enable analyzing the empiricsin a structured manner.

2.1 Disruptive Technologies

Defining what constitutes as disruptive innovation can be a scrupulous endeavor. Many authorshave tried to define the term, and while reaching similar conclusions, they have differences.To understand the meaning, one must first establish the fact that new technologies sometimescreate entirely new markets and/or fundamentally disturb the status quo of existing markets(Nagy et al., 2016). Disruptive innovation is an innovation that delivers on a different range ofattributes than traditionally valued by the typical customers (Bower and Christensen, 1995).Even so that the new offer often performs worse initially in terms of the traditionally valuedmetrics. However, the disruptive innovation creates an entirely new market through this newbundle of performance parameters (Christensen and Overdorf, 2000). Further, disruptive in-novation refers to innovations that are based on an alternate technology base than existingpractice. And this type of innovation disrupts current technical competences and therebydiminishes their value (Abernathy and Clark, 1985).

Generally, disruptive innovations are not picked up in an early stage by the mainstream cus-tomers for applications they know and understand. The disruptive innovations are thereforeoften validated and used for new applications and in new markets (Bower and Christensen,1995). However, even as the disruptive innovations do not initially address the mainstreamexisting market, the rate of which they improve ultimately lead to them addressing and con-curring the demand of the mainstream customers as well (Christensen and Overdorf, 2000).Similar argument is made by Bower and Christensen (1995), whom explains that the perfor-mance trajectories (the rate of current and future improvement) tend to be maintained bysustaining technologies while disruptive innovation often alter the trajectories. Another con-cept pair is discontinuous and disruptive innovation. Where the major difference between theterms is that discontinuous innovation may not have disruptive effect on the existing technologybase.

One of the founders of the expression Disruptive Innovation is Christensen, however his def-inition has been critiqued for not sufficiently covering all dimensions of innovation. As theexpression grew widely recognized, Thomond and Lettice (2002) identified that a more consis-tent definition was necessary. And by exploring a range of disruptive innovation dimensionsput forward by previous authors, Thomond and Lettice (2002) propose an alternative definition

6

of the term:

“A disruptive innovation is a successfully exploited product, service or business model thatsignificantly transforms the demands and needs of a mainstream market and disrupts its

former key players”

In contrast to the definition by Christensen and Overdorf (2000), this definition identifiesthat disruptive innovations transforms the demand of the mainstream market rather thansolely relying on the creation of new markets. Further refining the definition of disruptiveinnovation, and especially disruptive technology innovation is the paper by Nagy et al. (2016).Through the theoretical field of innovation adoption, the paper identifies radical functionalityto comprise innovations that enable the user to adopt new behaviors or perform new tasksthat was previously impossible. Innovations with radical functionality can create new marketsor new demand if well received by the marketplace.

Although, history has shown that radical functionality alone does not ensure the creation ofnew markets, many radical innovations fail (Nagy et al., 2016). This since the disruptivenessof an innovation is relative to marketplace needs and other innovations. Radical functionalityinnovations open the opportunity for a new market to be created, but they do not ensure it.From their research and with respect to the relative disruptiveness of disruptive innovations(innovations disrupt different actors on the market differently), Nagy et al. (2016) outline theirdefinition of disruptive innovation as following:

“An innovation that changes the performance metrics, or consumer expectations, of a marketby providing radically new functionality, discontinuous technical standards, or new forms of

ownership.”

Since this definition relates to technical innovation and considers the relative disruptiveness ofinnovations, it seems well suited for the purpose of this thesis. Thereof, it is this definition thatwill be referred to as disruptive innovation further on in this paper. Moreover, as the hyperloopconcept entails changing the performance metrics on the transportation market, and that thesystem offer radically new functionality which could transform customers’ expectations ontravel, hyperloop can be considered a disruptive technology. Hence, the technology will furtherbe referred to as a disruptive innovation.

2.2 Diffusion of Innovation

The invention of new technology often occurs as a single event, diffusion of that same tech-nology however is often a much more drawn out process. Although it is diffusion that ulti-mately determine the success and impact of the invention or innovation (Hall and Khan, 2003).Throughout history, two main characteristics has permeated the diffusion process, its slownessand the vast variety of acceptance rates for different innovations (Rosenberg, 1972). To grasphow the process of diffusion works, it is essential to comprehend why technological change maybe slow and how it emerges (Hall and Khan, 2003).

7

Diffusion relates to the spread of an innovation over time in a social system. The process isoften very complex, and while it may seem to happen naturally, it is often a result of a complexinterplay or reinforcing factors (Dearing, 2009). Diffusion as a concept can be looked uponas the result of balancing the benefits of a new technology against the cost of change. In theearly stages of diffusion, the environment is often characterized by substantial uncertaintiesand limited information both surrounding the costs and the benefits of the new technology(Hall and Khan, 2003). Demand will ultimately determine the decision, although the decisionsmade by the suppliers of the new technology, affecting the benefits and costs, will shape therate of diffusion (Hall and Khan, 2003).

Dearing (2009) identifies that the process of diffusion includes three distinct processes, namelythe presentation of the new innovation to society, acceptance by society and integration of thataccepted innovation. Diffusion theory does not suggest that diffusion rate is necessarily con-stant, it can be accelerated in any segment of the population through effective communicationand outreach (Dearing, 2009). Another important aspect to consider regards the diffusion ofdifferent types of innovation. Where the level of change and learning necessary to adopt atechnology affects the rate and shape of diffusion (Linton, 2002).

In the case of disruptive innovation, the rate of diffusion can vary greatly, and it is not un-common for the markets to be initially unidentified as disruptive innovation often concernscompletely new products (Linton, 2002). Disruptive innovation frequently relies on a differentcompetence base. Thus, also possess different performance characteristics. The novelty of theinnovation makes forecasting and predicting the diffusion rate difficult, as it often requiresnew knowledge in parts of the value chain (Linton, 2002). And as disruptive innovation attimes creates substantially increased value propositions or new attractive value propositions,it is not uncommon that the innovation creates opportunities and diffuses in multiple marketssimultaneously (Linton, 2002).

2.2.1 Adopting to New Technologies

One of the most significant things to remember when talking about adoption of new technolo-gies is that the decision is not whether to adopt or not, but rather a choice of adopting nowor postpone the decision until later (Hall and Khan, 2003). According to Dearing (2009) thereare three main characteristics that interact and enable the spread of new technologies, namely;an arising uncertainty of how to act when presented with new information, an urge of actingand responding to what influential citizens do and a social pressure of following what otherpeople have done (Dearing, 2009).

Further, two typical facts can be identified. Firstly, the fact that adoption to new technologiesusually is an absorbing phase, meaning that once a user has adopted to a new technology, it isuncommon that this technology later gets abandoned for the old one (Hall and Khan, 2003).The second stylized fact relates to the uncertain benefits of the new innovation. This maydelay the adoption since potential adopters have an option value to postpone the decision (Halland Khan, 2003). Furthermore, it can be argued that the decision of adopting to a technologybares resemblance to other investments and usually have three distinct characteristics, namely;uncertain future profit, sunk costs due to irreversibility and opportunity to delay. This way oflooking at adoption of new technology implies similar conclusions, the potential adopter hasan option value of waiting until the benefits are at least equal with the costs, which is another

8

reason why the diffusion process can be slow (Hall and Khan, 2003).

In diffusion literature it is common to separate between different types of adopters dependingon how eager they are to embrace an innovation and in what phase they enter the adoptionprocess. The first segment of adopters is called innovators, these are the first to adopt to anew technology and are often driven by novelty and is characterized by having little to lose,they want to explore the innovation and generally have a high tolerance for failure (Tidd andBessant, 2009). The second group to adopt is named early adopters, this group often havea specific interest and valuation of the new technology attributes (Dearing, 2009). The thirdadopters’ category is large majority, which decision to adopt is influenced by the fact thatothers already have adopted, and hence believe that it is the right thing to do. And finally, thelast category of adopters, the so-called laggards, adopt or remain resistant (Tidd and Bessant,2009).

A key aspect in literature is the role of opinion leaders. Opinion leaders are a subgroup withinthe early adopters whom are seen as experts and objective in relation to different innovations(Dearing, 2009). However, as opinion leaders judge innovations and that their role is to remainobjective, it is common that they reject new innovation, especially when it comes to radicaltechnologies. Thereof it is often more successful for suppliers of new radical technologies totarget innovators instead of opinion leaders in the early stages of the diffusion process (Dearing,2009).

When plotting the diffusion of new technology over time the usual obtained curve is in the formof a S-shape. The diffusion is typically slow at first, then accelerates and finally deterioratesonce saturation of the relevant population is approaching (Hall and Khan, 2003; Dearing,2009). In the context of adopters, one can identify the initial slow phase as the phase wheninnovators and early adopters adopt to the new technology. The adoption rate then acceleratesas the early majority starts to catch up and finally, when the capacity of the late majorityis approaching, the diffusion rate slows down (Tidd and Bessant, 2009; Dearing, 2009). Thismodel is one of the earliest and still today most commonly used methods to determine anddescribe the rate of diffusion. However, the method has been critiqued for assuming that thepopulation is homogeneous and have the same needs (Tidd and Bessant, 2009).

2.2.2 Factors Affecting the Diffusion of New Technologies

In diffusion literature, there is a wide range of different factors linked to the diffusion oftechnologies. The perhaps most obvious factors are the benefits received by the user andcost of adoption to the new technology (Hall and Khan, 2003). From the perspective of thecustomers, direct benefits such as increased utility are of course important. However, otherless obvious factors such as enjoyment, availability of complementary skills and input, andnetwork effects may be equally important in terms of demand for a new technology (Hall andKhan, 2003). In this section factors identified in literature as affecting the rate of diffusionwill be presented. For the benefit of the reader these factors have been sorted in to threeclusters, as suggested by Tidd and Bessant (2009). First, characteristics bound to individualsor organizations that adopt to an innovation will be touched upon, this section is called TheAdopter. Secondly, factors related to the innovation itself, that has been identified to affectadoption, is presented in the sections called The Innovation. Finally, the third group of factorsrelates to the characteristics of the environment in which the innovation is introduced, this

9

section is named The Environment.

The Adopter

Dearing (2009) identifies the social context in which the innovation is introduced, and espe-cially the structure of that system, as a key determinant of diffusion. Emphasizing the localopinion leaders, perception of the potential adopters and the pressure to adopt as particularlysignificant. The customer, or as Dearing (2009) expresses it, the adopter is another key com-ponent of diffusion, and especially its level of innovativeness. Which in this context relatesto the adopters’ eagerness to embrace the innovation in relation to others (Dearing, 2009).Further, factors such as age, attitude to risk, social status and education have been identifiedto influence the potential adopter decisions (Tidd and Bessant, 2009).

The commitment of adopters has both direct and indirect effects on diffusion through theinteraction between the engaged customers and the market. It provides a guaranteed demandfor the suppliers, directly impacting the adoption of the innovation. And indirectly, it providesmarket power since customers are likely to stay with the firm (Hall and Khan, 2003). Further,Hall and Khan (2003) suggests that network effects is very significant for diffusion of newtechnology. Network effects relates to if the user gets increased value of the technology withthe number of users.

The user adoption of a new technology can be outlined as a process with a number of differentstages. First, the customer gains awareness of the new product. The second stage regards per-suasion, in other words convincing the potential adopter that the innovation provides greaterbenefits than pre-existing solutions. The third phase, decision, where the potential customerdecides on whether to adopt to the new technology or not. Subsequently comes the implemen-tation stage where the innovation is implemented and finally continuation (Dearing, 2009).

The Innovation

Looking at the innovation itself, research suggests that the diffusion rate is positively correlatedto the match between characteristics of the innovation and four dimensions; communicability,pervasiveness, risk and profitability (Dearing, 2009). Communicability concerns how easythe utility of the innovation is. The level of which innovations performance can be observedis incarnated by pervasiveness. Risk relates to how disparate the new technology is to theexisting. And finally, profitability which embodies how cost effective or efficient the innovationis in relation to the alternatives (Dearing, 2009). These four dimensions were outlined toexplain how well the capability of an innovations connects with the adopters setting.

Another important determinant for the diffusion of a new technology is conceptualization. Itneeds to prove commercially viable by showing that it reaches appropriate technical capabili-ties. Especially in the cases where the idea is significantly more advanced than the industry’sengineering capacity, it will prolong the time for implementation of the innovation (Hall andKhan, 2003). New technologies commonly have relatively poor performance in the initialstages, this has been observed as one of the reasons explaining a slow early diffusion. The sup-pliers’ ability to improve the technology and lowering the costs over time has shown essentialfor subsequent acceptance. And as the technology develops and improves, the efficiency gainincreases, leading to an accelerated rate of adoption (Hall and Khan, 2003).

10

Other aspects affecting the diffusion and adoption of new technologies is development of com-plementary skills and goods, and invention of new users (Hall and Khan, 2003). Innovationscan also inspire providers of pre-existing technology to engage in improving their products andofferings to retain their competitive position, especially in cases when the innovation is a closesubstitute. This of course impacts the diffusion rate negatively (Hall and Khan, 2003). As asummarizing note, the literature combined identifies and emphasize five factors, related to theinnovation, as having especially significant influence of diffusion and adoption. These factorsare; relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, observability and trialability, and will befurther explained and described in Section 2.3.

The Environment

The characteristics related to the environment in which the innovation is introduced includeeconomic factors, market environment and sociological factors (Tidd and Bessant, 2009). Inthe perspective of the market, the prevailing wage rates in the market affects the diffusionof new technology. In markets were the wage rates are high, new labor-saving technology ishighly desired and thus, the diffusion rate of this type of innovations is higher than in marketswith lower prevailing wage rates (Hall and Khan, 2003). The structure of the market in whichthe innovation is introduced also impact the diffusion. The concentration of suppliers has forexample been found to be negatively correlated with adoption, corresponding with the idea ofthe relation between competition, price and adoption (Hall and Khan, 2003).

Another important perspective in the market is the role of governmental institutions and theregulatory environment, which can have major effects on technology adoption. In many cases,the government sponsor a technology both financially and with network effects (Hall and Khan,2003). Economic regulations however often foreclose entry and gives incumbents an advantagethrough large market shares. This have dual implication in diffusion of innovation. First, itcan reduce the inducements for cost-reducing innovations. Secondly, as the number of actorson the market is small, the benefits of innovations often increase (Hall and Khan, 2003). Whateffects the economic regulations depends on the particular price-setting mechanisms chosen.Another regulatory type that effects adoption of new technology is environmental regulation.These regulations often have direct impacts on adoption since they regularly require or prohibitthe use of particular technologies (Hall and Khan, 2003).

2.3 Characteristics of Diffusion

Related to the diffusion of innovation there is a range of characteristics bound to the innovationitself affecting the rate of which it spreads. These characteristics are not necessarily physicalor definite attributes, but rather relates to the perceptions of the innovation that potentialadopters have, perceptions influencing the decision of whether to adopt or not (Karakaya,2015). The relationship between adoption, diffusion and characteristics has been described bymultiple authors (Sonnenwald et al., 2001; Tornatzky and Klein, 1982; Tidd and Bessant, 2009;Nagy et al., 2016; Karakaya, 2015), and the perhaps most prominent is the five characteristicssynthesized by Everett M. Rogers which is presented in Table 1.

That these five characteristics affects diffusion rate and influence the adoption decision hasbeen validated in numerous fields (Sonnenwald et al., 2001). However, the relative impor-

11

Table 1: General definition of the five characteristics of innovation diffusion theory

Characteristic Definition

Relative advantage The degree of which an innovation is superior or perceived superior inrelation to competing products or the products it supersedes

Compatibility The extent to which an innovation corresponds with existing values,norms, experience and needs of the potential adopters, and how wellthe innovation fits together with existing technology and technologicalstandards

Complexity The perception of how relatively difficult an innovation is to comprehendand use

Observability The degree of which the results of an innovation is visible to others

Trialability The degree of which an innovation may be experimented with on a lim-ited basis

tance and weight of the different variables is still debated (Tidd and Bessant, 2009). It hasbeen identified that compatibility, relative advantage and complexity has the most consistentrelation to diffusion (Dearing, 2009; Damanpour and Schneider, 2008), although it can be iden-tified that other factors carries higher significance for certain types of innovations (Damanpourand Schneider, 2008). Most likely is that the relationship depend on the field, the potentialadopters, the type of innovation and the context of which it is introduced. Following, a de-scription of each of the five attributes, starting with relative advantage, will be presented togive the reader an understanding of how they are defined.

Relative advantage

Relative advantage refers to the degree of which an innovation is superior or perceived superiorin relation to competing products or the products it supersedes (Karakaya, 2015; Nagy et al.,2016; Tornatzky and Klein, 1982; Tidd and Bessant, 2009). Factors of relative advantage couldfor example be costs, financial pay-back, convenience, social prestige, functionality and so forth(Nagy et al., 2016; Tidd and Bessant, 2009; Sonnenwald et al., 2001). And the perception ofrelative advantage is positively correlated to adoption rate, in other terms, the higher theperceived advantage, the faster it diffuses (Tidd and Bessant, 2009). However, as the namesuggests, the perceived advantage is relative between different technologies and users (Nagyet al., 2016).

Relative advantage can be divided in to two subgroups, primary and secondary attributes.The primary attributes relate to factors such as costs and size, which are typically perceivedequal by the potential adopters. Further, primary attributes are essential for the innovationregardless of the adopter (Tidd and Bessant, 2009). Secondary attributes on the other handcommonly varies between different adopters and depend on the context and perception of

12

adopters. Attributes that can be sorted into this group are for example social prestige andconvenience, and the key distinction between the who groups is that the perceived value ofsecondary attributes regularly is highly dependent on the potential adopter. Furthermore,Tidd and Bessant (2009) identifies that a discrepancy between perception of an attributeand preferred perception of that attribute in potential adopters often exist. They call thisdiscrepancy “attribute gap”, a factor that is negatively related to adoption. The likelihood ofadoption to an innovation decrease as the sum of attribute gaps for that innovation increase.

Compatibility

The second factor identified as an important denominator for the rate of diffusion is compat-ibility. Compatibility in this context refers to the extent of which an innovation correspondswith existing values, norms, experience and needs of the potential adopters, and how well theinnovation fits together with existing technology and technological standards (Karakaya, 2015;Nagy et al., 2016; Tidd and Bessant, 2009; Sonnenwald et al., 2001; Tornatzky and Klein,1982). The concept of compatibility can be seen as a two-sided term, as it on one had refersto technology and existing practice and on the other hand relates to values and norms (Tiddand Bessant, 2009; Tornatzky and Klein, 1982). Both sides of the compatibility concept, ex-pressed by Tornatzky and Klein (1982) as normative compatibility and practical compatibility,is theoretically positively correlated to diffusion of innovation.

While the fit to existing technology and practice is important, the emphasis in literaturelays on the values and norms side. This since significant misfits in this category will requireeither the innovation or the adopter, or both, to change. In most cases of successful adoption ofinnovation, mutual change in both innovation and adopter transpires (Tidd and Bessant, 2009).Assessing the extent of how well the innovation corresponds with existing practice and technicalstandards is commonly quite easy (Tidd and Bessant, 2009). It relates to the technologystandards of the innovation and the knowledge associated with using the new product. If theinnovation entails a new and complex standard, this is usually associated with a need for newknowledge to be obtained, which can create knowledge barriers that the adopters are requiredto overcome (Nagy et al., 2016). When it comes to the level of performance, skill and practicecompatibility is a critical aspect for adoption, however few innovations fit in their user settinginitially. Hence, the subsequent process of adapting and transforming is essential (Tidd andBessant, 2009).

Complexity

Complexity is a characteristic which in innovation diffusion theory refers to the perception ofhow relatively difficult an innovation is to comprehend and use (Karakaya, 2015; Nagy et al.,2016; Sonnenwald et al., 2001; Tornatzky and Klein, 1982; Tidd and Bessant, 2009; Damanpourand Schneider, 2008). The general understanding is that when an innovation is difficult tounderstand, learn and use, the process of adoption will be slower than for innovations that issimpler for potential adopters can grasp (Sonnenwald et al., 2001; Tidd and Bessant, 2009).This since products with high complexity require new knowledge and skills (Tidd and Bessant,2009). Thereof, it can be concluded that the level of complexity has a negative relation todiffusion of innovation (Tornatzky and Klein, 1982). Further, it can be seen that complexityinfluence the direction of diffusion, and the impact is affected by factors such as availability

13

of information and skilled users, as well as technical support and complementary innovations(Tidd and Bessant, 2009).

Observability

The fourth conceptual characteristic in innovation diffusion theory is observability. Observabil-ity is defined as the degree of which the results of an innovation are visible to others (Karakaya,2015; Tidd and Bessant, 2009; Sonnenwald et al., 2001; Tornatzky and Klein, 1982). Observ-ability is linked to visibility and demonstrability of results and consequences from the use ofa technology (Sonnenwald et al., 2001), and a high visibility of the results is associated withincreased probability of rapid diffusion (Tornatzky and Klein, 1982). This corresponds to theidea that the likelihood of adoption is increased the easier it is for the potential adopters to seethe benefits of an innovation (Tidd and Bessant, 2009). In the research presented by Dearing(2009) it is proclaimed that the role of observability is especially important when it comes tocomplex innovations with multiple processes and high degrees of ambiguity (Dearing, 2009).

Observability is often critical from the perspective of policy creation. Although high visibilityis positively related to diffusion and adoption rate, having a high visibility in early stages, foran innovation were the expectations from the potential adopters are unrealistically high canbe counterproductive (Tidd and Bessant, 2009). This since a subsequent disappointment fromthe adopters in these cases is likely, and it can thereof be beneficial to withhold informationand delay diffusion.

Trialability

The final characteristic is Trialability which, in the context of innovation diffusion theory, isthe degree of which an innovation may be experimented with on a limited basis (Karakaya,2015; Tidd and Bessant, 2009; Sonnenwald et al., 2001; Tornatzky and Klein, 1982). A hightrialability will reduce the uncertainty amongst the potential adopters, and innovations thatcan be tried and tested has, in theory, a more rapid diffusion rate in relation to those whocannot (Tidd and Bessant, 2009; Tornatzky and Klein, 1982). Further, the level of risk andeffort associated with trialing the innovation is an aspect affecting adoption (Sonnenwald et al.,2001). Trialability has a particularly significant role in the diffusion of high-risk, radical andexpensive innovation (Dearing, 2009).

However, there is an exception to the positive relation between trialability and diffusion.Namely when undesirable consequences of an innovation overshadow the desirable ones. Con-sequently, the rate of adoption could be reduced, via trialability, for innovations were separa-tion between the desirable and undesirable consequences is difficult (Tidd and Bessant, 2009).Commonly there are two reasons why developers include potential adopters in the developmentprocess; to better understand the user needs and to obtain user acceptance and commitment.The first motive gives the developer means to improve the innovation whilst the latter increasetolerance for flaws. Though, as it for most innovations is impossible to involve all potentialusers in the development, understanding the needs and improving usability is usually the mainobjective (Tidd and Bessant, 2009).

14

2.4 Technical Transition

Infrastructure constitutes a fundamental element in the societal functions of transportation aspart of the economic and social services to the society. Societal functions are characterizedby socio-technical systems whom consist of a cluster of elements, amongst technology, userpractices, regulations, markets maintenance and supply networks (Geels, 2005). Technicaltransitions (TT) are in the literature defined as major, long-term technological changes forcedto fulfill the societal functions of the society and are in general drivers of change and highly in-tertwined with regulation, user practices, industrial networks and infrastructure (Geels, 2002).As TT emphases a dazzling multitude of change, including technology substitution, it do notoccur easily (Elzen and Wieczorek, 2005).

Radical new technologies often struggle to break through as regulations, infrastructure, main-tenance networks, incumbents and infrastructure are aligned to the existing technology, com-monly referred to as market lock-in (Geels, 2002). As long as engineers and firms share similarroutines and directions of evolution, these will form a technological regime. And over time,technological regimes will generate technological trajectories, as the community of engineersshare the same vision and direction (Geels, 2002). Technological regimes reduce the rate of in-novation as it generates stability towards shared incremental improvements along trajectories.

According to innovation studies, most innovations tends to be of an incremental nature as theyare typically variants of existing technologies bounded to the technological trajectory of existinginfrastructure (Elzen and Wieczorek, 2005). Although, radical innovations are developed inparallel, innovations of this nature tend to struggle to disrupt the technological trajectories,protected by huge barriers of the existing situation (Geels, 2002; Elzen and Wieczorek, 2005).In the work by Elzen and Wieczorek (2005), three specific attributes of transition are identified:Multi-actor, Multi-factor and Multi-level.

Multi-actor refers to that transitions involve a wide range of actors, firms, knowledge producers,consumers and governments. Multi-factor conceptualizes that transitions are not caused by asingle change factor, but rather are an interplay of several factors, such as technical, societal,regulatory and behavioral change, that are interlinked. Lastly, Multi-level implies that changeis inevitably present at various levels: in a context of individual actions at the micro-level, thestructuring of paradigms and rules at the meso-level, and lastly as wider societal and culturalcharacteristics as well as trends of individualization and globalization at the macro-level (Elzenand Wieczorek, 2005).

According to Geels (2005), system innovation can be seen as a transition, as it shifts from onesocio-technical system to another. System innovation are co-evolution processes dominated bytechnical change, as well as changes in other elements. Historically, the diffusion of techni-cal changes, or rather of new major technologies, have been prominent in the infrastructure(Geenhuizen et al., 2005).

A trend toward increased interest in transitions and system innovation can be observed, as itcould be considered to possess the possibilities to enhance environmental efficiency (Geels, 2005;Elzen and Wieczorek, 2005). A trend that is of particular interest amongst policymakers, asincremental change is not believed to lead to sustainability over time. For example, sustainabletransport is not just an issue of low emissions but also a concern of accessibility and the generalconcept of connections in urban areas, a challenge that requires more drastic change of the

15

current transport system than incremental changes can provide (Elzen and Wieczorek, 2005).

Further, Elzen and Wieczorek (2005) identifies that current research and up to date experiencewith transitions indicates the requirement of a strong knowledge base in the field. This has tobe complemented with the two major research challenges of improved insights in the dynamicof transition processes and how to successfully apply these in the development of strategiesand policies within the field, in order to achieve transitions towards sustainability (Elzen andWieczorek, 2005). However, research on infrastructure has a disposition to either exploreincremental changes within established infrastructures or to sought understand in how tooptimize existing system structures (Loorbach et al., 2010; Finger et al., 2005).

2.4.1 Socio-technical Transition

Kemp et al. (1998) have complemented the view of technological regime by defining it with thesociological perspective. He argues that technological regime is a rule-set of grammar embeddedin institutions and infrastructures. Further, cognitive routines are more widely interlinked asmore social groups than engineering communities are embedded in the processes and hence,Geels (2002) argues that technical trajectories become influenced by the complementing users,societal groups, policy makers, suppliers, scientist etc. As the activities within these differentsocial groups are governed by a semi-coherent set of rules, Geels (2002) identifies these associo-technical regimes.

In the work by Hughes (1983), the historian examines how industrialized nations are dependenton infrastructure systems. He argues that the systems are built up on components such astechnical artifacts, institutions, actors and organizations that are interdependent and havebecome increasingly intertwined over the years. Consequently, modern infrastructures haveevolved and expanded into Large socio-Technical Systems (LTS) (Hughes, 1983; Jonsson, 2000).LTS are often deeply embedded in society and is centrally managed, leaving appropriators andusers with less influence. Hence, the systems tend to be reluctant to change and negativeexternalities, such as global warming effects, become difficult to sustain. Further, Elzen andWieczorek (2005) argues that any transition towards more sustainable mobility patterns wouldimply a substantial degree of socio-technical change as new technologies interact with socialand cultural changes. As some of the LTS are not well adapted to the goals of sustainabledevelopment it becomes an increasing concern (Hughes, 1983).

Further, the evolution of a socio-technical system can be described through the three sequentialphases defined by Hughes (1983); build up - expansion - maturity. The buildup phase ischaracterized by the high uncertainty of the future demand and the response of adoption, ina context where the need for huge investments are required. Most likely, the system will gainresistance as history matters in the management of infrastructure. As new systems challengethe old, the newcomer will have to adjust, as the old system already is locked-in and physicallyin place. Further, the organizational design of incumbents will attempt to eliminate any newor competing systems trying to enter the market (Hughes, 1983).

In the expansion phase, the system grows as it is introduced on an initial market and this phasecan give an impression of autonomous growth where expansion seems inevitable - in Hughes(1983) words: “the system gains momentum”. In this phase various economic forces, suchas economies of scale, scope, and reach (Kaijser, 2004) accelerates the emerge of a dominant

16

design generated by dominant technologies where practices become institutionalized (Tongurand Engwall, 2017). Hughes (1983) argues that from a market perspective, system growthcan be determined by its positive system externalities. A system will only gain momentum,and hence only get increased value, once more people get access to the systems’ services andcomponents (Hughes, 1983).

After the expansion phase, the system tends to enter a stagnation stage where the maturesystem is deeply embedded in society and not easily transformed or changed. Extensive in-vestments in infrastructure over a long period of time will create negative structural tensionsfor transition (Dahmen, 2016), and as organizations and institutions create support regula-tions, and the huge vested financial and individual interest in the survival of the conventionalsystem, this tension is further inflated.

The large mass of LTS is embedded with an inertia that is characterized by lock-in to specifictechnological trajectories, and to regulations and institutionalized standards that are interwo-ven with the system (Tongur and Engwall, 2017). As these existing systems are locked in atmultiple dimensions, aspect such as social, cultural, infrastructural and regulative aspects haveto be taken into account, hence a focus from artifacts to socio-technical systems can be justi-fied (Geels, 2005). Hughes (1983) argues that a mature socio-technical system often consistsof actors, so-called system builders, who are unwilling to change in an already conservativesystem, leaving insufficient room for innovation (Kaijser, 2004).

In Hughes (1983) LTS perspective, he emphasizes the important concept-pair: tightly coupledand loosely coupled systems. In a tightly coupled system, such as the railroads, the systemis designed for specific system purposes with strong connection between components or sub-systems on a technical and institutional level. As these systems are centrally built, managedand planned, and the technical standardization of components are high, the access for externalradical operators becomes limited (Hughes, 1983). For example, in a transportation context,promising new technologies that arguably possess competitive performance to the existingonce are developed. But as the existing, tightly coupled systems generate barriers for newtechnologies, this threatens to neglect the new solutions (Geels, 2005).

Hughes (1983) argues that the system has solely one goal: to avoid technical and institutionalmismatch in the system. Respectively, a loosely coupled system can simply be described as asystem whom exhibits a lower degree of the characteristics mentioned above, Hughes (1983)mentions the sea transport as one example of such a system.

2.5 Transformational Pressure

Socio-technical change takes place in a field of forces where imbalances result in transfor-mational pressure that generates incentives of transitions (Blomkvist, 2016). Transformationpressures can generate structural tension, that Dahmen (1988) argues can be studied on atleast two analytical levels: where the first level is related to company, institutional or indus-try level meanwhile the second one relates to organizational and technological development(Blomkvist, 2016).

In this context, the first level reflects upon over production, malinvestments and market andcultural inertia that potentially generate structural tensions for innovative companies to diffuse

17

in the market. Meanwhile the second level complements this as it emphasizes the challenges ofaligning technology and organizations with each other. Although this discernment, Dahmenargues it to be challenging to clearly distinguish economic and institutional level with theorganizational and technological level (Blomkvist, 2016).

Transformation have historically appeared as a process of consistent actions between oppor-tunities and necessities, which through a series of non-equilibriums situations, i.e. structuraltensions, may result in an uninterrupted transition rather than a final equilibrium (Carlssonand Henriksson, 1991). These emphasize how essential competition is not based on costs andprices but rather on innovation and transformation (Blomkvist, 2016). Blomkvist (2016) fur-ther concludes that the Dahmenian analysis indicate that industrialists and entrepreneurs arenot restricted to the simplicity in terms of the core theory of economics. As these actors maybe biased by tunnel vision, make wrong investments, foster specific technologies and fail marketpredictions, these human actions will induce transformational pressure and create incentivesor transitions towards other actors in the economy.

As mentioned earlier and in the paper by Rıo Gonzalez (2009), technological change is ar-gued to be characterized as a process of the three major stages; invention, innovation anddiffusion (Jaffe et al., 2002; Del Rio Gonzalez, 2004), that influence several actors amongstusers, suppliers, manufacturers and policy makers (Hippel, 1988). Moreover, firms affected bytransformational pressure towards socio-technical transition can be divided into internal andexternal factors.

Internal factors emphasizes the set of internal preconditions and features of the firm in orderto facilitate technological change (Rıo Gonzalez, 2009). As these changes usually comes withsignificant investments, the response for such a transformational pressure benefit from top-level manager commitment (Kagan et al., 2003). Besides this, it is essential for the firmto possess the necessary financial resources to invest in these technologies accordingly (DelRio Gonzalez, 2004). Other important firm specific variables include export-orientation ofproduction, characteristics of sectors and the ownership of the firm (Rıo Gonzalez, 2009). Incomparison with internal factors, external factors refers to how a firm interact with social,institutional and market actors, and can be a significant driver of transformational pressure(Rıo Gonzalez, 2009).

Another facilitator of transformational pressure is market pressures which can origin fromboth demand-pull or technology push (Rıo Gonzalez, 2009). Tidd and Bessant (2009) identifiesthat innovation is not always about customer needs and commercial markets, but that marketpressure in terms of demand-pull is often originated by the social demand for new products,processes and services. However, as most customers do not buy a technology, but rather buysthe products that fulfill their demands; the technology push facilitates such a solution by alignthe technological innovation with the customers needs. As an historical example of this, theemerging energy crisis with increasing oil prices have created a transformational pressure ofpull for innovations of alternative energy sources (Tidd and Bessant, 2009).

As earlier models interpreted innovation as a linear sequence of functional activities, either newopportunities gave rise to innovation and refinements which found their way to the market-place, so called technology push, or the market needs for something new was identified whichconsequently made new solutions to emerge, referred to as demand pull (Tidd and Bessant,

18

2009). Moreover, Tidd and Bessant (2009) emphasizes the interactive nature of innovation byrealizing that both technology push and demand pull need to be mobilized. He further arguesinnovation to be a coupling and matching process where this particular interaction acts as acritical component (Coombs et al., 1987; Freeman and Soete, 1997). In some cases the tech-nology push will dominate while in others it will be the market pull, however, for a innovationto be successful Tidd and Bessant (2009) identifies the interaction as crucial.

In a socio-technical system, consumers and regulations exert transformational pressure to in-novate businesses in order to reduce the impact on the natural environment (O’Brien, 1999;Kleindorfer et al., 2005). Although the effects of pressure on environmental innovation canbe argued to vary among industries, it appears that firms operating in low levels of per-unitemissions will tend to respond positively to such a pressure meanwhile firms in the high level ofper-unit emissions might invest less in reducing emissions than they would otherwise (Yalabikand Fairchild, 2011).

Further, Yalabik and Fairchild (2011) identifies that the higher a firm’s level of emission is,the higher are the investments required to counter these effects of increased environmentalpressure. As these effects could reduce the demand and/or increased penalties of a firm, firmsmight find it more easy and efficient to adjust its market behavior rather then investing inexpensive emission reducing technology (Yalabik and Fairchild, 2011). The type of industry,determined by the level of emissions, is argued to be a determining factor of what degreethese pressures can improve environmental performances of the firm (Chen, 2001; Bansal andGangopadhyay, 2003; Brunnermeier and Cohen, 2003).

Moreover, Yalabik and Fairchild (2011) identifies subsidies as a more effective way to invest inenvironmental innovation than actions that could increase consumers pressure or environmentalfines. Also, evidence supports competition as an effective driver of environmental innovation.And in particular, if costumers are likely to switch due to environmental performance, reg-ulatory pressure can constitute a useful driver of innovation (Yalabik and Fairchild, 2011).Further, economic estimations indicate that R&D improvements of technological capabilitiestrigger environmental innovations. Pressure from environmental regulations by managementtools and general organizational changes also enhance environmental innovation (Horbach,2008).

As the CO2 emissions are growing in a magnitude of 3% yearly, a trend that can be ob-served over the last two centuries, these emissions have to be reduced with approximately5-6% yearly to avoid a disastrous increase of global temperature (Blomkvist, 2016). Hence,greenhouse gases are identified as one of the largest factors creating transformation pressure.For example, renewable energy technologies across the EU have generated transformationalpressure on infrastructure, stimulating technological change within it (Andersen, 2014). Thisis of particular interest for the transportation industry as reducing these critical emissions ne-cessitates the long-term elimination of all fossil fuels, and as the equilibrium point is stressedthis may result in a transition towards new technologies and engineering solutions to emerge(Dahmen, 1988; Blomkvist, 2016).

However, Blomkvist (2016) argues that simply eliminating the fossil fuel will not be enough tobecome long-term sustainable in the future. This transformation must most likely be combinedwith a significant reduction of car transport and growth of subsidiary, more environmental

19

friendly, modes of transportation (Blomkvist, 2016). A shift from pollution control to resourceproductivity could be required (Porter and Van der Linde, 1995).

Further, Porter and Van der Linde (1995) argues that there will not be any lasting successif policies promise that environmentalism will triumph over industry, nor that industry willtriumph over environmentalism. Instead an innovation-based solution that composes bothindustrial competitiveness and environmentalism is proposed. Such a transition could implya window of opportunity for alternative, more disruptive innovations to gain diffusion, at thesame time as new models of ownership and organization of transport related services couldemerge (Blomkvist, 2016).

2.6 Window of Opportunity

Hartley (2005) argues that in policy and research, the public sector need to develop an un-derstanding of innovation processes. As new technologies emerge and disrupt the current wayof thinking in the industry, a technology shift might occur and consequently opportunities fornew entrants may occur, a so-called window of opportunity. On the one hand, although suchcircumstances of being a first mover could provide sustainable advantages, Kerin et al. (1992)on the other hand, argues that there is a lack of strong evidence that being a first-mover in-evitable provides advantages solely from order of entry. However, Kerin et al. (1992) identifiesthat certain positional advantages and opportunities for achieving positional advantages andmarket share dominance might occur.

Mokyr (1992) argues that technological evolution often is a discontinuous and non adaptivetransition. Further, he distinguishes between macro- and micro-innovation, where the firstone is characterized by the lack of fit with the prevailing socio-technical regime and the laterone to exploits the opportunities generated by a macro-invention. These perspectives can beseen as complements to each other, as micro-innovations is pushed through process and otherinstitutional incentives (Ziman, 2003). Meanwhile macro-innovations is argued to be “hopefulmonstrosities” as their early performance characteristics are typically low, and promise newtechnical and functional possibilities (Mokyr, 1992).

On the one side, Mokyr (1992) argues that changes in the institutional and social environmentmay create a temporary window of opportunity to enhance the development of macro-inventionthrough a series of micro-inventions. But on the other side, Ziman (2003) argues that techno-logical change is relatively stable for long period of times, proceeded along technical trajectoriesand lock-in effects. This evolutionary process is more or less solely punctuated at brief periodsof rapid change, usually triggered by the appearance of a technological discontinuity (Ziman,2003).

As a window of opportunity usually require a shift in a complex technological system thatinvolves not only a change in technology but also fundamental changes for production, organi-zations, regulation and policies, it do not appear easily. As an example, it took almost over ahalf century for oil and natural gas to become a dominant energy source (Kemp, 1994). Nel-son and Winter (1977) argues that technological advancement can be dedicated to particulartechnologies, so called general trajectories.

These four trajectories are identified as scale economies, electrification, mechanization of op-

20

erations and chemical technologies. They emphasize the natural way to reduce costs, increaseprecision of production and reliability, and to achieve products improvements. Hence theyacts as drivers to possibly enable a window of opportunity for new technologies (Kemp, 1994).However, Dosi (1982) argues that technological paradigms has a powerful exclusion effect astechnical trajectories makes engineers and organizations ‘blind’ with the respect of other tech-nological possibilities, thus making it more difficult for a window of opportunity to appear.

Kemp (1994) identifies the terms dynamic scale and learning effects as one of the main reasonsfor the dominance of particular trajectories and from which prevailing technologies have ben-efited from the old technological regime. The term emphasizes the evolutionary incrementalimprovements in performance of the technology and reduction of manufacturing costs. Kemp(1994) further argues this to be one of the reasons that the diffusion process of radical inno-vations is likely to be slow and the short-term costs of large-scale technological transitions arelikely to be large. Hence, the improvement lead by a technical innovation has to overcome thelearning effects of old technological regimes, for a window of opportunity to occur.

Moreover, network externalities is another aspect that may reinforce the diffusion of technolo-gies in the economic system to generate a window of opportunity (Kemp, 1994). For example,as the network of users grows, the technology becomes more attractive to its users. Networkexternalities is a special kind of increasing returns with adoption (Arthur, 1988), that is iden-tified by Arthur (1988) as one of the five sources; learning by using, scale of economies inproduction, network externalities, technological interrelatedness and informational increasingreturns. Moreover, Arthur (1988) argues that there is a positive correlation with increasingreturns of adoption as the technology gets more attractive the more it is adopted. In sucha case, a competing technology can get ahead of its rivals and may end up dominating themarket (Arthur, 1988).

In the paper by Unruh (2002), he argues that there are mainly two possibilities to breakcarbon lock-in effects. The first approach is to foster the development within protective nicheenvironments to fulfill the critical criterion of the “cost effective” aspect of the technology.However, this approach comes with challenges as “cost effective” is not an objective criterion,but rather depends on the incentives by the established institutions which might be biased andcurrently fosters the already established technology and technological trajectory (Unruh, 2002).The second alternative would be for policy makers to facilitate the severe environmental impactcurrent fossil fuel technologies have before a crisis point is reached. In parallel, public educationpolicies and scientific research can pursue to increase the citizens awareness of environmentaldegradation. In that line of though, the goal is to reach a critical mass or social consensusfor policy makers to create enough positive transformational pressure to open up a window ofopportunity for a technology transition (Unruh, 2002).

Dolfsma and Leydesdorff (2009) on the other hand, explains how technologies which are beingdeveloped along specific trajectories tend to focus on the circumstances that lead to techno-logical lock-in. Further, Dolfsma and Leydesdorff (2009) argues that once a third selectionenvironment, beyond those of technology and market needs, interacts with two locked-in once,a technology can break-out of a trajectory generating a window of opportunity and hence re-turn to a competitive balance. Dolfsma and Leydesdorff (2009) identifies lock-in to be easier toprevent in larger markets but are more likely to occur in the early stages of new technologicaldevelopments. This is due to the fact that in order to maintain a competitive balance between

21

rivaling technologies, governments have to strategically step in at earlier stages. By sustainingthe development of alternative technologies until the market are well established, lock-in effectscan be postponed or even prevented (Collingridge, 1980).

However, once a lock-in has occurred, the only alternative for a window of opportunity cansometimes be a radical innovation that challenges the structural selection conditions for thespecific technology (Dolfsma and Leydesdorff, 2009). This could for instance happen once atechnology that has more pervasive product characteristics becomes available. In a corporateworld, a shift of trajectory may trigger a transition of different corporate alliances (Dittrichet al., 2007) or, the development of broader set of technical competences that are currentlyrequired by the market conditions (Dittrich et al., 2007). Since these shifts are of radicalcharacteristic, it is based on a reconstruction rather then on existing practices within thesocio-technical regime (Dolfsma and Leydesdorff, 2009).

Unruh (2000) argues that incremental change in technologies will always diminishing a domi-nant design’s advantage and technical trajectories. Although current technical trajectories cancreate barriers to new technologies, history shows that discontinuous technological transitionshave occurred repeatedly (Grubler, 1996). Larger transitions in infrastructure systems can his-torically be observed and include shifts from canals to trains, road and truck transportation orshift from cable to wireless telecom. Unruh (2000) argues that barriers will continuously delaythe time when technologies will be replaced by new dominant designs, but as long as superiorperformances to resolve the existing environmental contradictions are being developed, newwindow of opportunities will continue to arise.

2.7 Multi-Level Perspective

Transitions are extremely complex processes (Elzen and Wieczorek, 2005), and as a compre-hensive way to analyze it, Geels (2002) and Kemp et al. (1998) have delineated the framework:the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP), which complement the perspective of socio-technical tran-sition to the transition theory. As large socio-technical systems (LTS) represents relativelytightly coupled physical systems, the regime concept in MLP can compose a non-physicalstructure that takes the stability of socio-technical systems into account (Hughes, 1983). TheMLP framework emphasizes a co-evolution of technology and society in terms of the earliermentioned specific Multi-level attribute (Elzen and Wieczorek, 2005; Geels, 2005).

The framework is based upon evolutionary economics, innovation studies, history and sociologyof technology and aims at reducing the simple causality in system innovation (Geels, 2005). TheMLP framework distinguishes socio-technical transitions as interplay of multiple developmentsat three levels: Socio-technical landscapes, Socio-technical regimes, and Technological nichesas visualized in Figure 1.

As mentioned above, the meso-level is characterized by the structuring of paradigms and rules,and hence it forms the level of socio-technical regimes. Based on the view of cognitive routines,complemented by a widened concept of technological regimes, Geels (2004) defined the socio-technical regime as three interlinked dimensions: the network of actors and social groups, acomplex set of rules, and technical and physical elements. As activities within socio-technicalregimes are actively created and maintained by several social groups, these become linkagesin socio-technical systems. On the one hand, social groups tend to have its own distinctive

22

Figure 1: The Multi-Level Perspective (MLP)

paths and hence there is a relative autonomy amongst them, but on the other hand, as linkagesbetween sub-systems occur, social groups are also interdependent and aligned to each other.This dynamic relationship between actors and regimes is represented by the concept of socio-technical regimes (Geels, 2005).

As mentioned earlier, socio-technical regimes constitute the stability of socio-technical systemsand although the stability is dynamic, mainly incremental innovation occurs, leading to tech-nical trajectories and path dependencies (Elzen and Wieczorek, 2005). Consequently, radicalinnovations often have its origin on the micro-level in the bottom level in the MLP framework,technological niches.

Technological niches is characterized by protected environments of R&D projects that fos-ter cross-disciplinary experimentations of niche technologies (Hughes, 1983; Schot and Geels,2008). These processes enable innovations to nurture interactions between issues and actorsrepresenting their issues. Hence, the innovations can emerge and mature in a protected spacefrom the selection mechanisms of the commercial environment (Hoogma, 2002; Schot andGeels, 2008). As the performance of radical novelties is initially low, the technological nichelevel represents an important location for learning processes among many dimensions, e.g.,user preferences, regulation, technology and infrastructure, and act as the first step of buildingthe social networks that support innovations (Geels, 2004).

Both actual users and societal groups can invest time and resources to foster theses techno-logical niches where policymakers often, but not necessarily, also are involved. One importantreason for policymakers to nurture not yet profitable innovation is based on the expectationthat they will be an important part of fulfilling particular societal and collective goals in the fu-ture. Hence, situations where governments and other actors neglect the current disadvantagesof the technology can occur, making them invest to upgrade and develop a hopeful monstrosityin order to achieve future societal benefits (Schot and Geels, 2008).

However, according to Schot and Geels (2008), these spaces can permit niche innovations togain sufficient momentum in order to trigger a transition in the social-technical regime level.For a radical innovation developed in a technological niche, Geels (2002) argues that it willmost likely only break through when the stability of socio-technical regimes is identified with

23

problematic tensions and the links within the regime are “loosened up”. Such a window ofopportunity could for example appear if the external pressure from the highest level of the MLP,the landscape level who constitutes the environment of the socio-technical regime, would gainsufficient transformational pressure (Hughes, 1983; Schot and Geels, 2007).

The socio-technical landscapes is defined by the macro-level and as explained by Schot andGeels (2007) the landscape level constitute problems as well as opportunities for the emerge oftechnological innovations which are beyond the control of actors on the specific niche marketsnor at regime level. It includes a wider exogenous environment and is often referred to othersystem theorists as the system’s environment (Hughes, 1983; Geels, 2005). Further, Schotand Geels (2007) characterize the socio-technical landscapes as the set of rules that mentortechnical design, guide the market development and control the regulations that shape thedevelopment for these markets. It includes markets and institutional aspects that forms thelower levels to function (Hughes, 1983). The socio-technical development and change on thelandscape level, which could be either slow or disruptive, generate tension on the regime tochange (Geenhuizen et al., 2005).

However, changes in the landscapes can be difficult to discover for actors within regimes orniches (Blomkvist and Larsson, 2013) and as a consequence, insufficient momentum to triggera shift in the social-technical regime may occur (Schot and Geels, 2008). As landscape includeaspects of society, e.g. spatial and material networks of cities, highways, and electricity infras-tructures it empathizes the fact that it is beyond the direct influence of actors and cannot bechanged on will (Geels, 2005).

Lastly as a summary, each level in the MLP framework and respectively definition is presentedin Tabel 2.

Table 2: General definition of respectively level in the Multi-Level Perspective framework

Levels Definition

Socio-technical land-scapes

The geografical location and the set of rules that mentor technical design,guide the market development and control the regulations that shape thedevelopment for these markets. It includes markets and institutional aspectsthat forms the lower levels to function and is beyond the control of actors onthe specific niche markets nor at regime level.

Socio-technicalregimes

The three interlinked dimensions of the network of actors and social groups,the complex set of rules that exists, and technical and physical elements for thecontext. As activities within socio-technical regimes are actively created andmaintained by several social groups, these become linkages in socio-technicalsystems.

Technological niches Protected environments of R&D projects that foster cross-disciplinary ex-perimentations of niche technologies. This level represents a space whereinnovations can emerge and mature in a protected space from the selectionmechanisms of the commercial environment.

24

Chapter Summary

In this chapter, a comprehensive background to the theoretical field of study has been presented.In the introductory part of the chapter, the concept of disruptive innovation in explained,concluding that hyperloop can be considered to constitute a disruptive innovation. This isfollowed by a thorough examination of theory related to the complex diffusion and adaption ofinnovation, a process where the adoption of new technologies and more particular the factorsaffecting the adoption such as the adopter, the innovation and the environment is importantdeterminants of its success. This subsequently derives to the framework Characteristics ofDiffusion, which relates five parameters of an innovation to its potential of reaching diffusion.Further, as a driver of technical transitions in the society, theories regarding transformationalpressures, socio-technical transition and how these can generate a window of opportunity fordisruptive innovations to emerge is emphasized. Lastly, to set these drivers in relation to thehyperloop technology and to connect the technology to the Swedish context, the ‘Multi-levelPerspective’ framework has been explained.

25

3 Method

In this chapter the methodology used in the process of conducting the paper is outlined andmotivated. As the researchable subject is of an exploratory nature, an inductive qualitativecase study approach is proposed. Two main sources of information are used for the gatheringempirics, namely academic literature and interviews. The accumulation of information throughliterature is focused on peer-reviewed material relevant for the research area, complemented bysecondary sources to cover the most recent development of hyperloop. The material is criticallyreviewed and continuously validated. The gathering of empirics from interviews is extractedusing a semi-structured approach with representatives from different perspectives relevant forthe diffusion of hyperloop on the Swedish market. Furthermore, this chapter presents the overallresearch design of the study, the TRL framework used to analyze the maturity of the hyperloopsystem and critically discuss the research quality.

The purpose of this paper is to give an overarching understanding of the Swedish transportmarket dynamics, together with a comprehensive evaluation of the hyperloop concept. Andhence contribute to more inclusive knowledge and understanding of hyperloop’s viability inthe Swedish context.And as mentioned in the Chapter 1 this has not been comprehensivelystudied previously. This purpose is of an exploratory nature, addressing a gap in knowledgeand aiming to make an Swedish specific empirical contribution to the field in question. Hence,a qualitative structure of the explanans have been selected, in accordance with Blomkvist andHallin (2014).

Due to the exploratory purpose of this paper, the exact formulation of what to investigate wasinitially unknown, making the process sensitive to empirical findings (Blomkvist and Hallin,2014). Hence, an inductive study approach was necessary to clarify and define the formulationof the problematization. This entails diving in to empirical material, developing an under-standing of the researchable phenomenon, before choosing the appropriate theory (Blomkvistand Hallin, 2014). And as this approach allows for continuous revision of the explanandum,keeping an open mind to significant discoveries from the empirics and adjust accordingly, it isargued to increase the probability of a scientifically valuable thesis.

3.1 Research Design

The central aspect when outlining the appropriate research design is to reflect and identify whatempirical sources that are necessary to give understanding to the researchable phenomenon.In other words, deriving who and what that needs to be studied to support answers to theresearchable problem (Blomkvist and Hallin, 2014). The purpose of this paper is to giveenhance knowledge to the discussion revolving hyperloop and its potential introduction onthe Swedish market. This is a highly multi-faced and complex phenomenon, making it nearlyimpossible to comprehensively cover all aspects within the scope of a master’s thesis. Whenencountered with such an endeavor, the researcher must choose a research design that ensuresprofound material in as many relevant areas as possible (Blomkvist and Hallin, 2014).

For this thesis a case study design has been chosen, as it constitutes a method that is frequentlyused within social science to develop theories and handle complex phenomena’s. The approachgenerates rich empirical material, capturing complexity in a better way that other researchdesigns by choosing one or a few examples (cases) to say something about the phenomenon

26

(Blomkvist and Hallin, 2014).

An inductive research study is often accompanied with a case study design since it permits thediscovery of new dimensions, derives empirical support to the research area as well as deeperinsights into the particular explanandum (Blomkvist and Hallin, 2014). Eisenhardt (1989)further argue that case studies are appropriate when the researchable phenomena have notbeen comprehensively studied in the past. And with this motivation, it was concluded thatthe case study methodology was the most suitable structure of design for this paper.

While the case study methodology does not provide statistical generalizability, it can de-liver foundation for analytical generalizability. And as acknowledged by Blomkvist and Hallin(2014), it could be uninteresting or even impossible to cover all aspects of a complex phe-nomenon in social science since “explanans can never fully reflect explanandum”. The riskof limited generalizability is critiqued by Eisenhardt (1989) when using the case approach forgenerating knowledge. The generalizability of the study should therefore be reviewed and re-flected upon prior and during the course of the research, something that has been consideredwhen conducting this paper.

To ensure a profound research material, the data gathering process was conducted in three pro-cesses: (1) exploratory, empirical pre-study of the researchable phenomena where the Ishikawadiagram was utilized to conclude areas to investigate, (2) review of the theoretical field and (3)complementing qualitative empirical study. The exploratory pre-study consisted of a compre-hensive investigation of previous research on the topic, enabling delineating and refining theproblematization, purpose and expected contribution to the field, as well as obtaining a thor-ough understanding of the researchable phenomenon. The theoretical review was performedon existing literature of the field and specific aspects significant for the purpose of the paper.The final data gathering process concerned interviewing relevant experts whom could providerelevant insights about the phenomenon. To preserve ambiguity and flexibility in the data, anecessity as the study was highly sensitive to the empirical material, a semi-structured inter-view methodology was considered most appropriate. The semi-structured approach allows theinterviewers to converge on relevant topics during the interview, which potentially can provideadditional insights and interesting findings (Blomkvist and Hallin, 2014).

3.1.1 Literature Gathering

The inductive nature of this research entails gathering of literature in two parts. Firstly, inthe pre-study phase of the project where literature related to the phenomenon was reviewed togain a holistic understanding of the field and identify the gap which the project could make ascientific contribution. This literature is focused on peer-reviewed scientific articles exploringhyperloop as first-hand sources. Moreover, complementary secondary sources where used whennecessary, for example to cover the most recent development. The extracted relevant materialfrom this part of the study is presented as empirics in Chapter 4 as well as Chapter 5 and 6.The second part of the literature gathering is related to the theoretical field in question andwas performed to map the scientific area, give a theoretical understanding of the explanandumas well as identify theoretical frameworks especially relevant to consider when analyzing theempirics. This part of the literature gathering is focused exclusively on peer-reviewed scientificarticles and is presented in Chapter 2, Theoretical Field.

27

The literary sources referenced in this paper have been selected in accordance with their rele-vance to the study. And each source has been validated prior to use in the paper, with focus ondistinguishing between historical and contemporary sources, in harmony with Blomkvist andHallin (2014). The review is focused on thematic identification and intellectual contrasting,rather than excessive depth, which is consider suitable when conducting exploratory studies.Critically reviewing and cross-referencing the theoretical concepts, discussing similarities andconflicts in literature is significant for the generalizability and validity of findings. And boostcreative reasoning during the research process (Eisenhardt, 1989). We argue that the inter-nal generalizability and validity of our study is enhanced through the discussion of previousresearch, and by finding connections with the study’s findings.

3.1.2 Interviews

As the phenomena studied in this paper is complex and multi-faced, interviews were considerednecessary to gain increased understanding and to provide specific insights in to the multiple dif-ferent aspects of the problematization. Using interviews to gather empirical material is widelyused in social science research. One of the main reasons for this is that interviews providesinsights in to how individuals reason related to different aspects with relatively simple means(Blomkvist and Hallin, 2014). Furthermore, interviews often provide a deeper understandingas well as new ideas and dimensions of the phenomenon, and can contribute with unexpecteddiscoveries, which is highly important when conducting qualitative research.

As this study is of an exploratory qualitative nature, a semi-structured interview methodologywas chosen. This interview approach entails having themes and areas which the interview isorganized around. The different predetermined themes are then brought up in the most naturalorder throughout the interview, with agility and flexibility to ask complementing questions andfurther delve into interesting and important aspects identified during the interview (Blomkvistand Hallin, 2014). Creating an open conversation, with relevant exhaustive answers is key forthe quality of qualitative interviews as it generates prerequisites for the extracted material.

The interviews conducted in this study were performed with an exploratory purpose, struc-tured to retrieve broad and flexible content, adjusted for each interview. Questions were askedin an open-ended matter, seeking to explore a variety of important insights about the purposeand avoid influencing the interviewees, reducing the risk of bias. And the use of value-ladenquestion formulations was further avoided. The questions and topics covered in the respectiveinterviews have been adjusted and modified according to the specific expertise of the intervie-wees. This to ensure as much profound material in the multiple aspects of the problematizationas possible. Findings from the interviews has been subjected to impartial critical review andcross-referenced with the previous research to increase the reliability of the findings.

The choice of persons to interview was based on their relevance, availability, area of expertiseand with respect to the relationship between their different expertise. Also the aspect ofincluding persons that are both positive and negative towards the hyperloop technology hasbeen considered. This to give the study multiple perspectives and covering insights fromdifferent key stakeholders in the potential process of realizing Hyperloop in Sweden. Thedifferent interviewees are presented in Table 3 in the form of role and company together withthe interview date and the reference name used in this report. This table further complementedby a more thorough description of the persons interviewed presented in Appendix I.

28

Table 3: Presentation of the interviewees

Role, Company Date Referred to as

Senior Adviser, The Swedish Transport Ad-ministration

19/02/18 Senior Adviser at STA

Co-founder and Project Manager, FS Links 22/02/18 Representative of FS links

Deputy Research Director, VTI 06/03/18 Deputy Research Director at VTI

Professor, Department of Aeronautical andVehicle Engineering, KTH

09/03/18 Professor in rail vehicle Dynamics

Professor Emeritus, Department of UrbanPlanning and Environment, KTH

13/03/18 Professor in transport economics

Researcher, Department of Transport Plan-ning, Economics and Engineering, KTH

22/03/18 Researcher in transport planning

Member, The Swedish Parliament 23/03/18 Member of parliament (L)

Head of Business Development, Ramboll Swe-den

26/03/18 Representative of Ramboll

Board member, Hyperloop Sweden 27/03/18 Representative of Hyperloop Sweden

Member, The Swedish Parliament 27/03/18 Member of parliament (M)

Head of Section for Technology and Railway,The Swedish Transport Agency

16/04/18 Head of Technology and Railway at ST-Agency

Group Interview, Setterwalls 27/04/18 Lawyers of Setterwalls

Senior Adviser, Transport Analysis 17/05/18 Senior Adviser at Transport Analysis

To adhere the ethical and confidential principles of the Scientific Research Council, Veten-skapsradet (1996), as well as the best practices in the confidentiality convention (Kaiser, 2009),each interviewee were asked if they agree to that the material extracted from their interviewwas used in this report. Further, they were asked if they agreed to being referenced, bothbefore and after the interview, with the option of remaining anonymous. And in a few cases,the interviewees were offered to preview the empirical material extracted from their interview.

29

3.2 Ishikawa Diagram

Since the researchable phenomenon this paper intends to investigate is large and complex, theIshikawa diagram have been used in the earlier phases to identifying subproblems that needsto be surpassed on the path to reaching the research objective of the thesis and for delineatingsubareas to investigate when faced with the multiple different aspects of the problematization.Moreover, the Ishikawa diagram, often referred to as the Fishbone Diagram, is a method thatis frequently utilized within various fields. The most common application of the technique isto identify and clarify the causal relationships of a problem and hence it is has been used as avaluable tool for this study (Enarsson, 1998; Wong, 2011; Bose, 2012).

The Ishikawa diagram is visually presented in Figure 2. The head represents the main problem,the branches or “bones” of the diagram is the visual representation of potential causes orsubproblems. If necessary, each or some of these branches can be broken down further todeepen the analysis. In accordance with this definition, the Ishikawa diagram was considereduseful in finding sub questions to our researchable phenomena, as well as delineating thenecessary researchable subfields to investigate for a comprehensive study of each subproblem.

Figure 2: Visual presentation of the Ishikawa diagram method.

3.3 Technology Readiness Level

As hyperloop is a technology in a critical development phase, were several questions ariseconcerning whether or not the companies behind the technology can fulfill the prejected per-formance (Nikitas et al., 2017; Decker et al., 2017; Arup et al., 2017; Ross, 2016), a methodto evaluate how far the development has reached is necessary. For this purpose, a concep-tual framework called “Technology Readiness Levels” (TRL) have been used in this thesis.The TRL concept was originally introduced in the mid-1970s by the National Aeronautics andSpace Administration (NASA), as a systematic tool to allow more effective and communicativeevaluation of the maturity of a particular new technology (Mankins, 1995). Since its origin,the concept has been frequently used in NASA space technology planning (Mankins, 1995).However, it was not until the publication of a white paper by Mankins (1995) that the TRLscale gained momentum, as it was strengthened by comprehensive definitions of the technologyreadiness levels (Rıo Gonzalez, 2009). After this, the TRL concept got increasingly adoptedand wide spread in the context of evaluating the maturity of technology development processes

30

(Rıo Gonzalez, 2009).

Today the TRL scale have a wide range of applications for evaluating technology maturityacross several industries and numerous organizations consider implementing the framework intheir practice (Mankins, 1995). One of the largest strengths and reasons to use TRLs in thisthesis is the highly effective communication of the status of new technologies, which is one ofthe most significant uncertainties when it comes to the hyperloop development and progression(Nikitas et al., 2017; Decker et al., 2017; Arup et al., 2017; Ross, 2016).

In the white paper, Mankins (1995) states that for TRLs to be useful the general model shouldinclude basic research in new technologies and concepts, and focused technology developmenttargeting specific technologies for one or more potential identified applications. This should befollowed by technology development and demonstration before the beginning the constructionof a full system. The succeeding phases concern system development and lastly system launchand operational modifications (Mankins, 1995). The TRL scale consists of 9 levels, spanningfrom the first level of basic research to the highest level of a fully functioning and launchedsystem (Rıo Gonzalez, 2009). The general definition of each level will be presented in the tablebelow (Table 4), which is complemented by more comprehensive description of the nine levels.

Table 4: General definition of the TRL levels

Level Definition

TRL 1 Basic principles observed and reported

TRL 2 Technology concept and/or application formulated

TRL 3 Analytical and experimental critical function and/or characteristic proof-of-concept

TRL 4 Components validated in laboratory environment

TRL 5 Components validation in relevant environment

TRL 6 System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment

TRL 7 System prototype demonstration in operational environment

TRL 8 Actual system completed and qualified through test and demonstration

TRL 9 Actual system proven through successful mission operations

TRL 1 - Basic principles observed and reportedAs the lowest level of technology maturity, this is where the scientific research has resulted inthe observation and reporting of basic principles that are being translated into applied researchand development (Rıo Gonzalez, 2009). This stage is characterized by for example studies ofbasic properties of materials and is usually addressed by scientific research organizations oruniversity researchers (Mankins, 1995). The costs to achieve TRL 1 can vary from low to very

31

high, depending on the type of research involved. For example, a discovery in aerodynamicsrequiring wind tunnels, supercomputers or laboratories, will in comparison to a discovery of anew computational algorithm, involving only one or a few researchers, have significantly highercosts associated to the project (Mankins, 1995).

TRL 2 - Technology concept and/or application formulatedOnce the basic physical principles have been translated into applied research and development,practical applications can be invented or identified in the second level of TRL (Mankins, 1995).At this level, the application is still hypothetical as no experimental proof or detailed analysishas been conducted to support a specific function. An example of reaching technology readinesslevel 2 is the observation of the high crucial temperature of superconductivity in a novel classof materials, made in the 1980s, where a potential application for thin film devices could bedefined for the new material (Rıo Gonzalez, 2009).

TRL 3 – Analytical and experimental critical function and/or characteristic proof-of-conceptIn the third level, active research and R&D is initiated with the goal to prove the TRL 2with a proof-of-concept. The stage is characterized by both analytical studies to connectthe technology with an appropriate context, in parallel with more experimental, laboratory-based studies to physically validate that the previous predictions or applications are correctand feasible (Mankins, 1995). The appropriate approach depends on the physical phenomenainvolved in the invention, and the complexity of the process of proving the feasibility can varyfrom low to moderate (Rıo Gonzalez, 2009). Hence, the costs to achieve TRL 3 is typicallylow to moderate and is largely correlated to the technology’s or concept’s complexity (RıoGonzalez, 2009). These activities can be undertaken by almost any kind of organization, butdue to the increasing costs, they tend to include some kind of formal sponsorship in terms ofgovernment or industry investments. As the risk is still high, most venture capital sources areunwilling to fund projects below TRL 3 (Rıo Gonzalez, 2009).

TRL 4 – Components validated in laboratory environmentFollowing a successful proof-of-concept in TRL 3, the basic technological elements is aligned andintegrated to establish that they work together and can achieve levels of performance in TRL4. The validation is of relatively low fidelity and could be composed of discrete components ina laboratory setting to best support the concept that was formulated earlier (Mankins, 1995).For this level, the costs are expected to be relatively moderate and only compose a modestfraction of the costs for an eventual full-scale system setting (Mankins, 1995). In line with thelower levels, the cost tends to be technology specific, but is most likely several times greaterthan the investments required to achieve the previous level, TRL 3. As the risk from thisstage and further on is decreasing, the likelihood of an invention at TRL 4 or higher receivingfunds from venture capital sources increase (Rıo Gonzalez, 2009). An example of TRL 4could be the demonstration of a new approach to avionics, including testing of algorithms in apartially computer-based and partially bench-top component by using simulated vehicle inputs(Mankins, 1995).

TRL 5 – Components validation in relevant environmentIn TRL 5, the fidelity of the components has to be increasingly tested. The basic technologymust be integrated with supporting elements so that the system on a component-, sub- andsystem level can be reasonably simulated in a somewhat realistic environment (Mankins, 1995).For this R&D stage, costs are expected to range from moderate to high, largely technology

32

specific, and probably up to two or more times greater than reaching the previous TRL 4. Suchactivities would most likely be undertaken by an R&D organization and involve some formalsponsorship by governments, industry or private investors (Rıo Gonzalez, 2009). For example,a new and more efficient type of solar photovoltaic material, that could be used in an actualfabricated solar array, that is integrated with power supplies, supporting structure and testedwith solar simulation capability could represent TRL 5 (Mankins, 1995).

TRL 6 – System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environmentFollowed by the completion of TRL 5, TRL 6 represents testing a model or prototype sys-tem – which would go well beyond discrete component level breadboarding – in a relevantenvironment. At this level, a relevant environment is strictly limited to the real environmentthat the actual system application is intended for. For example, if the relevant environmentwould be the environment of space, the demonstration has to be in actual space (Mankins,1995). However, not all technologies will undergo a TRL 6 demonstration as the maturationstep of the system is more or less driven by assuring management confidence rather than R&Drequirements (Mankins, 1995). As a major step in the level of fidelity of the technology wasreached in TRL 5, the costs of reaching TRL 6 is expected to be high and significantly specificto the technology demonstration that needs to be performed. The cost is expected to be sim-ilar to or lower than the investments required for the next level, TRL 7 (Rıo Gonzalez, 2009).Unlike previous levels, the activities in TRL 6 are solely undertaken by an appropriate formal“project-like” organization and would most likely continue to involve formal sponsorship (RıoGonzalez, 2009). As an example of TRL 6, an innovative approach to high temperature/lowmass radiators could be demonstrated by flying a working, sub-scale, but scalable model of thesystem on a Space Shuttle (Mankins, 1995).

TRL 7 - System prototype demonstration in operational environmentIn TRL 7, an actual system prototype has to be demonstrated in the intended operationalenvironment, hence it is a significant step beyond TRL 6 (Mankins, 1995). Moreover, theprototype must be near to or in the scale of the planned operational system. The purpose isstill to achieve maturity and to ensure confidence amongst the system engineers and devel-opment management, beyond the purposes of technology R&D (Mankins, 1995). This stephas not always been realized in past programs and is not always a necessity. This since notall technologies in every system have to be demonstrated at this level. However, the level isusually motivated if the technology and/or sub-system application is both relatively high riskand mission critical (Rıo Gonzalez, 2009). Costs related to reaching TRL 7 is expected to bevery high and likely a significant fraction of the cost to develop the finalized system applica-tion. As the previous level, these activities are undertaken by an appropriate formal projectorganization and always involves formal sponsorship (Rıo Gonzalez, 2009). An example of acase where TRL 7 was necessary is the Mars Pathfinder Rover, which it was demonstrated ona TRL 7 to ensure the feasibility of the particular system design for future Mars micro-rovers(Mankins, 1995).

TRL 8 – Actual system completed and qualified through test and demonstrationAccording to its definition, all technologies being implemented in actual systems go throughTRL 8. This stage is characterized by the end of system development for most technologyelements (Mankins, 1995). For example, the process of design, development, testing andevaluation of a space system for NASA could be TRL 8. But TRL 8 might also include casesin which new technology is being integrated into an already existing system. Example of this

33

could be the development and testing of a new control algorithm into the onboard computeron the Hubble Space Telescope while it is operational (Mankins, 1995). The costs of this stagehighly depend on the mission and the functional requirements that the system address, butwould however most likely be considered very high. In fact, the cost could possibly be largerthan the combined costs of all previous TRL levels by a factor of 5 to 10 times (Rıo Gonzalez,2009). Of course, such a project would be undertaken under the same circumstances as theprevious TRL 7 (Rıo Gonzalez, 2009).

TRL 9 - Actual system proven through successful mission operationsAs in the previous level, all technologies being applied in an actual system eventually gothrough TRL 9 (Mankins, 1995). In this stage, minor bugs are being addressed to finalizethe system development of the actual system deployed (Rıo Gonzalez, 2009). However, it isimportant to distinguish that planned product improvement of ongoing or reusable systemsare not included (Mankins, 1995). For example, followed by a system launch, there mightbe a need for small adjustments to the software or changes of operational procedures. Thesechanges could include integration of new technology into an existing system (Rıo Gonzalez,2009). The costs of the final TRL would typically be high, but are usually significantly lessthan the more critical full-scale system development at TRL 8. Inevitably, these activities arerestricted to formal missions or operational organizations (Rıo Gonzalez, 2009). Although thedistinction between TRL 8 and TRL 9 can be considered inexplicit, the central difference is inits operations. Where for example building a new spacecraft would be considered TRL 8, theactual launch and operation of that spacecraft in a mission would, by its definition, be TRL 9(Rıo Gonzalez, 2009).

In this thesis, TRL will be applied as a method to evaluate the development of hyperloop anddetermine the maturity of the technology. The purpose of using the TRL framework is toillustrate and enhance the perspective of how far away, technically, the system is to reach apotential market entry, in other terms a maturity of TRL 9.

3.4 Research Quality

When assessing the quality of a research is common to examine and discuss the concepts ofReliability, Source Criticism, Validity and Generalizability. As the study has been of an ex-ploratory nature, addressing a gap of knowledge in Sweden regarding the hyperloop technologycomplemented by a more Sweden specific empirical contribution to the field, the reliability ofthe research is argued to be critical. Furthermore, as the exploratory purpose of the paperentails a continuous revision of the explanadum and is interactively restricted based on theempirical findings that was used, the reliability needs to be cautiously considered. However,reliability is commonly referred to as if the results would be recurrent if the same study wererepeated.

The main sources for this thesis are be the literature reviews and interviews. As mentioned pre-viously, literature was gathered for two purposes. The first to provide a scientific backgroundand frame of the theoretical field on which this paper is based. This part of the literature gath-ering consist exclusively of scientific peer-reviewed articles, which has been critically reviewedand cross-referenced. Hence, the reliability of this section of the study can be considered high.

The subsequent part of the literature gathering concerns empirical material on the hyperloop

34

concept and its surroundings. In this part of the study several factors that can be criticallydiscussed. The concept hyperloop is a fairly new technology resulting in a shortage of scientificjournals or articles. However, the literature study has a majority of peer-reviewed scientificsources that enhance the reliability and justifies the methodology. But as the technology israther new and progresses rapidly, less reliable sources such as news articles or websites ofcompanies developing hyperloop has been used as complementary, more situational specific,sources of information. The lack of scientific sources and the use of companies as complemen-tary sources could provide a slightly narrow perspective of the field, and since the companiesalready are invested in the technology they could be seen as potentially biased. News arti-cles might also have hidden agendas or be influenced by other aspects, narrowing down theperspective. To reduce the biases and unreliability of these sources, this material has beencritically viewed upon and supported, to an as high extent as possible, by other means of otherempirical material, such as scientific articles and interviews.

Another concern when investigating fairly new technologies, currently under an R&D stages,is the lack of insight for outside observers. R&D activities usually requires high investmentsand this fact together with high competition to enter the market, leads to information rarelybeing shared to a deep extend. As interviews with international hyperloop companies hasbeen hard to overcome, this knowledge gap becomes even more challenging to eliminate orreduce. However, as the main part of the literature review is conducted on peer-reviewedscientific sources that solely have been complemented by more situational specific sources ofinformation the reliability could be considered sufficient for the study.

The second source used to gather empirical material is interviews. These sources can be crit-ically discussed from several aspects. To start with, the interviews will be a narrow selectionof persons representing actors (e.g. Politicians, Government authorities, Research institutionsand other organizations/persons that could be involved with hyperloop in Sweden), selectedto represent their organization. And as the methodology of semi-structured interviews, wherethe questions for each interviewee has been modified to their specific role and expertise, entailthat findings of these can be biased by their personal opinions and hence not always remainrepresentative for the company/organization that they are representing. Further, these inter-views have been interpreted and codified where biases such as miss interpretations and morecould emerge.

In order to increase the reliability of these sources, findings from interviews has been sub-jected to impartial critical review and cross-referencing with the literature review and previousresearch. Despite this, if the study were to be repeated, and in particular with other represen-tatives from the actors in Sweden, findings from interviews might differ. Thus, the reliabilityof the interviews is reduced. However, as the interviews mainly have an exploratory purposeto enhance the knowledge for the Swedish perspective of the hyperloop technology, the lackof other alternative sources and the huge potential for a valuable scientific contribution to thefield justifies the chosen methodology on behalf of reduced reliability.

When it comes to the validity, it determines how well the research focus on what it intendedto do. This has been an ongoing process where the problematization, purpose and questionformulation of the research must be absolutely aligned. As long as these three aspects stayaligned, the validity of the thesis will be considered high. With the exploratory nature of thestudy, complemented with the semi-structured interviews where the problematization, purpose

35

and questions interactively have been revised, the validity of the thesis could be consideredhigh.

As the nature of a case study implies that statistical generalizability is hard to achieve, thebasis of studying solely hyperloop as a case cannot assert that the findings from this singlecase, with any statistical probability, will apply to all other cases, even if they are similar. Onthe other hand, although the specific Swedish market dynamics have been studied in relationto the diffusion of hyperloop, several similarities can be identified from this case study, whichcan be applicable for other disruptive technologies in Sweden. Further, clear similarities canbe observed for hyperloop’s potential diffusion on markets beyond the context of Sweden. Theway that the results of the case study may be valid to other, similar cases, is outlined in thecontribution part of this paper, which enhance the analytical generalizability of the study.

36

Chapter Summary

In this chapter the overall methodology, which have been used throughout the process of thisproject, has been outlined. Since this is an exploratory study, sensitive to the gathered empiricalmaterial, and has the intent to provide a holistic view of the dynamics on the Swedish trans-portation market, an inductive case study approach was concluded to be most suitable. Theliterature used for this research consists of mainly peer-reviewed, scientific articles, comple-mented by more situational specific secondary sources of the hyperloop development to ensurescientific and theoretical depth in the field, meanwhile the interviews have been used to coverthe perspectives of the Swedish market dynamics. A semi-structured interview approach waschosen, which enables ambiguity and flexibility in the study to cover the most important aspectsfrom each interviewee. The gathered empirics from interviews have been subjected to impartialcritical reviews and cross-referencing with the literature and previous research to diminish biasand increase reliability. A short presentation and motivation of the selected interviewees wasfurther presented, and the chosen research design was described and argued for. To analyzethe maturity of the hyperloop technology, the method The Technology Readiness Level (TRL),was explained. And in the final section of this chapter, the quality of the study was criticallydiscussed.

37

4 The Hyperloop Technology

To give a thorough understanding of the hyperloop concept, this section initially describes thehyperloop technology and outlines how the concept is intended to work as the next mode oftransportation. As the concept is fairly immature and the rate of innovation and R&D activitiesis high, the progression of the hyperloop development is outlined. Moreover, the companiescurrently developing the technology is presented with respect to their individual progression uptill today. Lastly, the hyperloop concepts performance and competitive nature in relation tocontemporary alternatives is outlined. Followed by an overview of the technical and functionaluncertainties that still surrounds the technology.

The conceptual idea of hyperloop is sending passengers and cargo in levitated vessels, calledpods, powered by solar power, through low-pressure tubes at high velocities (Gonzalez-Gonzalezand Nogues, 2017; Arup et al., 2017; Werner et al., 2016). The pod is accelerated by an ad-vanced linear system with a moving motor element mounted on the pod combined with astationary motor element in the tube (Werner et al., 2016). The system is projected to achievehigh speeds and substantially reduce traveling times, changing the concept of distance as per-ceived today (Arup et al., 2017).

Hyperloop generates lift by motion through a medium at high speeds, rather than dependingon buoyancy or static phenomena. Through its transonic operations, hyperloop implementsan aerodynamic design with an air-breathing flow-path, giving the technology resemblance toairplanes rather than train design (Decker et al., 2017). Since much of the friction is removedby levitation and reduced air resistance, it is expected that the technology is highly energyefficient and that maintenance related costs are low (Arup et al., 2017). This is further enforcedby the system being a closed environment, unaffected by the weather conditions (Arup et al.,2017). The low resistance also means that the need for acceleration and deceleration is limitedto short sections of the tube.

There are several technical solutions for vehicle levitation and propulsion, and the final designchosen for hyperloop will relate to the efficiency of the whole system. In the Alpha paper byMusk (2013), an air-bearing system for levitation was proposed. Recently however, most hyper-loop development seems to focus more on maglev technology with electromagnetic propulsion(Decker et al., 2017). Both Hardt and Virgin Hyperloop One, two companies striving to re-alize the technology, focus on magnetically levitated pods inside low-pressure tubes propelledby linear electric motors (Arup et al., 2017).

To reduce the effects of pressure buildup and decrease the choked flow around the pods, hyper-loop will be equipped with an air compressor in the front. This on-board compressor systemtransfers air from the front of the pod to the rear, reducing drag by around 20%. And by doingso, hyperloop increase the maximum achievable speed from about 800km/h to near Mach 1or 1224km/h (Yang et al., 2017). Furthermore, the computerized shape simulations presentedby Yang et al. (2017) proclaims that an ellipse head with a semicircle tail offers the bestperformance in terms of reduced aerodynamic drag.

The main difference between the proposed hyperloop system and the maglev technology is thevacuum tube, and the low-pressure environment is a critical design parameter of hyperloop’sefficiency. However, there is a trade of between energy needed for obtaining the low-pressureand the benefits of that pressure. Lower pressure will entail higher power needs for the vacuum

38

system, while higher pressure will require more power to the propulsion and on-board com-pressor system. Hence, an optimal pressure level needs to be identified (Decker et al., 2017).Decker et al. (2017) concludes that deviations beyond this optimal pressure point, in particu-lar for higher pressures, will increase the energy consumption fairly rapidly. The relationshipbetween tunnel leakage and energy consumption is another factor that system designers mustconsider, as changes in the leakage rate can have severe impact on energy consumption andenergy cost (Decker et al., 2017). Although, most required vacuum components are commonunits, and as has been shown by Virgin Hyperloop One’s test facility, it is possible to create afunctioning system with both tube and airlocks already today (Arup et al., 2017).

The proposed tube diameters are between 3 and 5 meters with a wall thickness of between 2and 3 cm depending on the intended purpose. And while the vacuum tube comes with safetyrelated concerns, there are no fundamental issues currently projected (Arup et al., 2017).There are several possible configurations for how the tube infrastructure should be built, forexample underground, on ground or elevated above ground on pylons. The proposed pylonalternative entails having 1.5x2.0m pillars spaced out with a distance of 30m, allowing freepassage underneath the structure. This would significantly reduce the effective land use andlimit the effects on existing infrastructure (Werner et al., 2016).

As a safety measure and to mitigate the consequence of power outage, all pods will be equippedwith redundant battery packs which will power the life support systems. Adding to this, alllinear accelerators will be equipped with enough power storage to bring the pods currently inthe tube to a safe stop in case of power outage (Taylor et al., 2016). Furthermore, all hyperlooppods will be equipped with independent mechanical breaking systems and emergency wheels(Werner et al., 2016).

4.1 The Hyperloop Development

After Elon Mysk published the Hyperloop Alpha paper, several companies have picked upwhere he left off. Each with the sole purpose of becoming the first company to make thehyperloop technology a reality, hence creating the next mode of transportation. In this section,a brief introduction of the most prominent companies will be presented followed by a time lineinvestigation of the hyperloop development.

4.1.1 Hyperloop Companies

One of the most successful companies in the race towards realizing the hyperloop technologyis Virgin Hyperloop One, former Hyperloop One. Originally being a tech startup located in agarage in Los Angeles, Virgin Hyperloop One had in the end of 2017 succeeded to bring in atotal funding of 295 million dollar, making them one of the strongest incumbents to developthe hyperloop technology. They currently have a full-scale test facility, DevLoop, locatedin Apex, Nevada, together with several government agreements to conceptualize hyperlooptransportation solutions (Virgin Hyperloop One, 2018).

In parallel, another startup company, Hyperloop Transporation Technologies (HTT), was in-corporated with the community platform JumpStartFund in order to create a team with theshared vision to realize the hyperloop technology. Today HTT has a team of over 800 indi-viduals, across 6 continents, making hyperloop transportation a reality. They have secured 8

39

government agreements, built R&D centers and started a number of feasibility studies acrossthe world (Hyperloop Transportation Technologies, 2018a).

SpaceX, a company known for wanting to commercialize space travel, is another organiza-tion connected to the development of hyperloop technologies. SpaceX has its headquartersin Hawthorne, California, with an approximately one mile long and six-foot outer diameterhyperloop test rig. SpaceX is a private company founded in 2002 by Elon Musk (SpaceX,2018a). As the Alpha paper was published, opening up for private investors or incumbents todevelop hyperloop technologies, SpaceX arranged a Hyperloop Pod Competition to acceleratethe development of functional prototypes and encourage innovation of hyperloop technologies.In the competition, teams strive to design and build the best transport Pod. Beyond hostingthe event, SpaceX had no affiliation with any hyperloop company (SpaceX, 2018b).

Resulting from the competition new companies, exploring hyperloop technologies, have beenfounded; amongst one of the forerunners is Delft Hyperloop. Delft Hyperloop is currentlya research team of 37 ambitious students from all the faculties of the Delft University ofTechnology, building on a working prototype of the pod in order to prove the technical andcommercial viability of the hyperloop concept (TU Delft, 2018c).

Also Hardt Hyperloop, was founded by the winning team of the first SpaceX pod Competition(Hardt, 2018a). Hardt Hyperloop is the first European company to develop hyperloop, has aorigin in the Netherlands, and constitutes a team of 20 members, who has the shared visionto developing and realizing hyperloop technologies, and in particular for a European context(Hardt, 2018c). Hardt Hyperloop have a successful cooperation with the biggest constructioncompany in the Netherlands, BAM, which enabled them to build Europe’s first hyperloop testtrack at the campus of the Delft University of Techology (Hardt, 2018b).

Another company that are developing hyperloop as a potential future transportation mode isTransPod. From its origin in 2015, TransPod is based in Canada and have been expanding theirnetwork, signed partnerships and currently has a TransPod team consisting of professionalsfrom the aerospace and rail industry to designing a system supporting a 1000 km per hour pod(TransPod, 2018a).

4.1.2 Progression of the Development

It all started in August 2013 when Elon Musk published the Hyperloop Alpha white paper(Musk, 2013). This paper initiated the race towards realizing the hyperloop technology andbecame the starting point for several hyperloop companies to take on the task to develop thehyperloop technology.

Up till today, several companies are daily working to prove the hyperloop transportation modeas viable and feasible for commercial utilization. Thus, the progression of each previouslymentioned hyperloop company is presented bellow.

Virgin Hyperloop One

Hyperloop Technologies, Inc (recognized as firstly Hyperloop One but later on Virgin Hyper-loop One) was in the mid of 2014 started by Josh Giegel and Shervin Pishevar. From being

40

a start-up in a small garage, they later on, in the end of 2014, managed to establish an Inno-vation Campus in LA’s downtown art district, to innovate, design and test components of thehyperloop (Virgin Hyperloop One, 2018).

In 2015, Virgin Hyperloop One officially announced that they have recruited the former presi-dent of Cisco Systems, Rob Lloyd to be the new CEO of Virgin Hyperloop One with the textmessage (Virgin Hyperloop One, 2018):

“come and change the world with me”

Towards the end of that year, Virgin Hyperloop One established the Apex Test and Safety sitein the desert outside North Las Vegas, Nevada. And next year, in the beginning of 2016, VirginHyperloop One brakes ground by validating the design of the motor and power electronicssystem through a live Propulsion System Open Air (POAT) test where the Hyperloop sledaccelerates to 136 mph in 2.2 seconds.

In parallel, Virgin Hyperloop One announced the signing of an all-new partnership with DPWorld for a cargo Virgin Hyperloop One system at its deep-water Jebel Ali port in Dubai,the third largest port and terminal operator in the world. The arrangement aims at exploringthe economic and technical feasibility of hyperloop technology, and how it can improve theefficiency, sustainability and profitability of the Jebel Ali port (Virgin Hyperloop One, 2016).

In addition to this, Virgin Hyperloop One also signed an agreement with the Roads and Trans-portation Authority of Dubai (RTA) to investigate the realization of using Virgin HyperloopOne technology to connect Dubai to the greater United Arab Emirates (UAE), cutting atwo-hour car drive into 12 minutes of travel. In partnership with McKinsey & Co and theBjarke Ingels Group (BIG), a multi-national team of architects and engineers will explore afeasibility study supported by the RTA. Business model, technical solution and certificationprocesses will be evaluated in order to bring Virgin Hyperloop One’s autonomous, point-to-point, on-demand and high-speed transportation system to the UAE. This partnership is thesecond agreement Virgin Hyperloop One has signed in Dubai and the sixth worldwide, un-derlining Dubai’s aspiration of being in forefront of innovative technology (Virgin HyperloopOne, 2018). The chairman of the RTA, his Excellency Mattar Al Tayer, commented on theagreement (Jennings, 2017):

“This is an opportunity to help transform the UAE from a technology consumer to atechnology creator, incubating expertise for a new global industry, in line with the UAE’s

Vision 2021. With Hyperloop One, we will create a new means of transportation, keeping ourregion at the forefront of transportation technology and innovation.”

The agreement has so far been focused on producing a comprehensive human experience forHyperloop travel through showcasing the first-ever routes from Dubai to Abu Dhabi, includingconceptual interiors and exteriors of the passenger pods. The study is based on how anurban and inter-city transportation network should integrate with the existing infrastructure(Jennings, 2017).

41

In Europe, Virgin Hyperloop One, in collaboration with KPMG, publishes the first study of ahyperloop system between Helsinki and Stockholm and starts the Virgin Hyperloop One globalChallenge with the purpose of comprehensively exploring proposals to build hyperloop networksconnecting cities and regions around the world. With more then 2600 teams registered, the 35strongest proposals were chosen to explore more in-depth.

Also, the construction of the Development Loop (DevLoop) begins and a few months later thefirst tube is successfully in place (Virgin Hyperloop One, 2018). Followed by the beginningof 2017, Virgin Hyperloop One announced the Devloop construction to be complete, makingit the first full-scale Hyperloop test track. A partner program was launched to unite globaltransport leaders to change the way the world moves (Virgin Hyperloop One, 2018). In the endof that year, Virgin Hyperloop One’s passenger Pod XP-1 took its first ride on the 500-meterlong test tube at DevLoop, reaching a speed of 155 mph. The XP-1 passenger pod measures8.7 meters long, 2.7 meters tall and 2.4 meters wide.

A new investor, Richard Branson as part of the Virgin Group, invests an unspecified sum ofmoney in Virgin Hyperloop One resulting in the creation of a new partnership and re-brandingto Virgin Hyperloop One. Besides this, Virgin Hyperloop One announces an agreement withthe Maharashtra government to conduct a preliminary feasibility study. The study is intendedto support the Pune Metropolitan Region Development Authority (PMRDA) by identifyingpotential routes and analyze the economic impact and technical feasibility of hyperloop trans-portation technologies in India (Economic Times, 2017).

In the end of 2017 and beginning 2018, Virgin Hyperloop One conducted a full-scale testhitting the new record of 387 kilometer per hour, showcasing a hyperloop pod and unveileda passenger app to explore the customer interaction and experience for the future supersonictravel system. A new region for an upcoming feasibility study was publicly announced in thebeginning of 2018, as the state Missouri, United States. The study intends to analyze thetechnical alignment among the potential economic impact and benefits of connecting KansasCity, Columbia, and St- Louis with a hyperloop system (Virgin Hyperloop One, 2018).

Also, the Indian State of Maharashtra has announced their intent to build a hyperloop be-tween Pune and Mumbai, beginning with an operational demonstration track. The route willlink central Pune, Navi Mumbai International Airport, and Mumbai in 25-minutes of traveltime and for a travel volume of 26 million people (Hyperloop-One, 2018c). The project willstart with a six-month feasibility study to analyze and define the route alignment and howit will affect the region. After the successful completion of the feasibility study the projectwill enter a procurement stage to determine the public-private partnership structure that isrequired (Hyperloop-One, 2018c). The construction will begin after the procurement and willbe completed in two phases. The first phase will begin with an operational demonstrationtrack build between two points of the route to serve as a platform for testing, certifying, andregulating the system for commercial operations (Hyperloop-One, 2018c). This is process isprojected to take from two to three years from the point that the agreement is signed. Fol-lowed by this, the second phase will focus on complete construction of the full Pune-Mumbairoute and range from five to seven years to be completed (Hyperloop-One, 2018c). In thoseterms, the deal aims at having a full functioning commercial hyperloop line operational by2025 (Hyperloop-One, 2018c).

42

Most recently in February 22nd 2018, Virgin Hyperloop One unveiled the first physicallyexperience and look into the hyperloop prototype design of the passenger pod, in collaborationwith the RTA, during Innovation Week in the UAE at the City Walk 2 in Dubai (Hyperloop-One, 2018b). Sheikh Hamdan bin Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Crown Prince ofDubai, was the first one on site to unveil the Pod which later on came to be open for publicvisitors (Hyperloop-One, 2018b). The German car manufacturer BMW has designed the seatsin the pod, and passengers would need to be buckled with seatbelts and hence seated at allthe time during travel. Furthermore, the hyperloop pod was marketed to be divided into twoclasses, a gold class and a silver class with a capacity of five respectively 14 passengers per pod(Hyperloop-One, 2018b).

Later on, in 29th April 2018, Virgin Hyperloop One in collaboration with DP World, the largestinvestor in Virgin Hyperloop One, introduced the DP World Cargospeed, an internationalbrand for hyperloop-enabled cargo transportation to support the fast, sustainable and efficientdelivery of palletized cargo (Hyperloop-One, 2018a). It includes the vision for the future of on-demand freight transportation and to support rapid, on-demand deliveries globally (Hyperloop-One, 2018a). DP World Cargospeed system is expected to deliver freight at the speed of flightand closer to the cost of trucking, and is argued to be unique according to the statement ofRob Lloyd, the CEO of Virgin Hyperloop One (Hyperloop-One, 2018a):

“The Virgin Hyperloop One system underpinning DP World Cargospeed is unique in that itdoesn’t need to be passenger-only or cargo-only. Rather, it is a mixed-use system that fully

utilizes system capacity and maximizes economic and social benefits.”

Virgin Hyperloop One has projected to have three hyperloop systems in service by 2021 (VirginHyperloop One, 2018).

Hyperloop Transportation Technologies

In November 2013, Hyperloop Transporation Technologies, HTT, was founded with the sharedvision of making the hyperloop technology a reality. A month later, the company releasedan extensive crowd-storming feasibility study of hyperloop, where HTT explained the processthey will use to realize the hyperloop technology and justified it as technically feasible andeconomically viable (Hyperloop Transportation Technologies, 2018a).

In the beginning of 2015, HTT filed construction permits in Quay Valley, California, to be-gin construction process of the first full-scale passenger system (Hyperloop TransportationTechnologies, 2018a).

Following 2016, HTT finalized and signed an agreement with the Slovakian government toexplore building a local hyperloop system, connecting Bratislava with Vienna, Austria andBudapest, Hungary (Hyperloop Transportation Technologies, 2016b). And in the end of thatyear, HTT also signed an important agreement with the Abu Dhabi Department of MunicipalAffairs and Transport (DMAT) to study the utilization of hyperloop technologies between AbuDhabi and Al Ain (Hyperloop Transportation Technologies, 2016a).

In the beginning of 2017, HTT announced the agreement with the city of Toulouse to open afacility for the development and testing of Hyperloop technologies (Hyperloop Transportation

43

Technologies, 2017b). A 3000 square meter facility along with outdoor terrain will be provided.Not shortly after, the development of the first full-scale passenger hyperloop capsule begun.With over three years and thousands of hours of design, research and analysis the company aimsto officially reveal it in early 2018 at the R&D center in Toulouse (Hyperloop TransportationTechnologies, 2017b). The capsule will be used as a proof of concept in the ongoing negotiationsand feasibility studies currently taking place across the world. The capsule is estimated to be30 meters long with a diameter of 2.7 meters, weighing 20 tons and a passenger capacity of28-40 passengers (Hyperloop Transportation Technologies, 2017b).

Meanwhile in Dubai, HTT signed an important strategic partnership agreement with the officeof His Highness Sheikh Falah Bin Zayed Al Nahyan as part of the project to link the cities ofAbu Dhabi and Al Ain, and the agreement will allow HTT to accelerate the pace of the projectwhich follows the previous study signed by HTT and DMAT in November 2016 (HyperloopTransportation Technologies, 2017a). The future work will include route analysis, feasibilitystudies, cost estimates and a development schedule. With the support of the government ofAbu Dhabi, and with the sponsorship of His Highness Sheikh Falah Bin Zayed Al Nahyan, theinitiative is one of its kind (Hyperloop Transportation Technologies, 2017a).

Further, a private investor signed an agreement with HTT to perform a feasibility study, with acontact value of 2.5 million USD, for Indonesia with initial focus on Jakarta and connecting Javaand Sumatra. Also, the Republic of Korea, and more specifically the government’s departmentof technology and infrastructure, the Korea Institute of Civil Engineering and Building Tech-nology (KICT) as well as the country’s top engineering research school, Hanyang University,signs an agreement with HTT to co-develop Hyperloop technologies. The agreement includeddevelopment of the vacuum state tube infrastructure and a safety management platform, afull-scale testbed for the hyperloop and a co-development of safety standards and regulationsfor the hyperloop system as a passenger experience to KICT (Hyperloop Transportation Tech-nologies, 2018a).

Later, HTT signed another historic agreement, this time with the government of the Indianstate of Andhra Pradesh to connect the two cities Amaravati with Vijaywada, turning a tripof over an hour, into a 6 minutes travel. In collaboration with local stakeholders, the work ofbuilding the regulatory standards required for safe and efficient operations will be evaluated.In the first phase of the project, HTT will conduct a sex-month feasibility study to analyzethe surrounding cityscapes to generate the best route to connect the two cities. After that, inthe second phase, HTT states that they will construct and build its first hyperloop in India(Davies, 2017).

This year, 2018, HTT together with the Northesat Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency(NOACA) announced the signing of an official public private partnership agreement for theplans of the Great Lakes Hyperloop, connecting Cleveland to Chicago in 28 minutes (Hyper-loop Transportation Technologies, 2018c). The agreement includes a signed letter of intent anda memorandum of understanding between NOACA and the Illinois Department of Transporta-tion. As part of the project, HTT and NOACA will deliver a regional feasibility study whichwill take approximately six to nine months to be completed and currently have a founding of$1.2 million (Hyperloop Transportation Technologies, 2018c). The project will be comprisedof 20 regional stakeholders, including leaders in industry, national labs, academia and govern-ment entities to further support HTT to provide regulatory framework and safety standards

44

(Hyperloop Transportation Technologies, 2018b).

Beyond this, HTT have announced the establishment of a new multi-million dollar agreementwith Brazil in Cantagem, Minas Gerais to open up a new Global Innovation Center for Logis-tics, XO Square (Hyperloop Transportation Technologies, 2018e). The facility will be locatedon 5.3 acres, where the 43.000 sq/ft XO square will house HTT’s logistic research division,a fabrication lab, and an ecosystem of leading global companies, universities, startups, in-novators, scientists and governments from all around the world (Hyperloop TransportationTechnologies, 2018e).

Most recently (April 12th, 2018), HTT announced the arrival of the first set of tubes designedto transport both people and freight to their center in Toulouse (Hyperloop TransportationTechnologies, 2018f). With a diameter of 4.0 meters, the system is optimized both for pas-sengers’ pods and shipping containers. The first phase includes a 320-meter system that isprojected to be operational this year, and in addition, a second full-scale system constitutingof a 1 km long track elevated by pylons at a height of 5.8 meters is projected to be com-pleted one year later, in 2019 (Hyperloop Transportation Technologies, 2018f). In parallel, thefull-scale passenger capsule, currently near completion, is scheduled for delivery to the facilityunder this summer (2018) for assembly and integration (Hyperloop Transportation Technolo-gies, 2018f). This step is according to HTT’s Chairman Bibop Gresta an indicator of HTT’scommitment to innovation in longterm (Hyperloop Transportation Technologies, 2018f):

“. . . We have a research center for freight and logistics in Brazil and a facility in Toulousewhere we’ll deliver the first full-scale passenger capsule. Hyperloop is no longer a concept, it

has become a commercial industry. ”

In parallel to this (18th April, 2018), HTT also announced the signing of the historic agreementwith Aldar Properties PJSC, the leading real estate developer in Abu Dhabi, for the world’sfirst commercial Hyperloop system of 10km in critical development area between Dubai andAbu Dhabi (Hyperloop Transportation Technologies, 2018d). The agreement will allow HTTto start the construction of a hyperloop system as well as the XO Square Innovation center anda hyperloop visitor center. The line is planed to be build in several phases, starting within theten kilometer allocation, but further indented to create a commercial hyperloop network acrossthe Emirates and beyond (Hyperloop Transportation Technologies, 2018d). With regulatorysupport, HTT have the ambition to have its first section in the Emirates operational by thetime for Expo 2020. However, as the construction already have begun in Toulouse, the podwill most likely be assembled and optimized there, prior to use in the Emirates (HyperloopTransportation Technologies, 2018d).

SpaceX

During 2015, the company SpaceX joined the hyperloop development by arranging the firstHyperloop Pod Competition to accelerate the development of functional prototypes and en-courage student innovation of hyperloop technologies (SpaceX, 2018b).

Followed by the successes of the 2015 competition organized by SpaceX, a new hyperloop Podcompletion will be arranged by the company this summer, 2018, where the focus is on the

45

single criterion – maximum speed. The application will be open for new and returning studentteams (SpaceX, 2018b).

Delft Hyperloop

Currently, Delft Hyperloop are working on the design and production of the Pod Delft Hyper-loop II, and with this pods, the team will participate in the second SpaceX Pod competitionthat takes place this summer, 2018 (TU Delft, 2018a). Moreover, Delft Hyperloop has arouseda lot of interest globally, resulting in several partnerships across multiple industries (TU Delft,2018b). In particular, the one with the industrial service provider ERIKS, who is a B2B com-pany that brings innovative solutions to a variety of industries such as automotive, solar energy,aviation and even space exploration, is of interest (TU Delft, 2018d). As the design phase wascompleted in March 2018, Delft Hyperloop now started the construction phase together withexperts of ERIKS and others to prepare them for the competition (TU Delft, 2018d).

Hardt Hyperloop

As a Spin-off winner of SpaceX Hyperloop Pod competition, Hardt Hyperloop was foundedin 2017 (Hardt, 2018a). Roughly half a year later, Hardt Hyperloop announced, throughsuccessful partnerships, that they managed to enable the first European hyperloop test facility.The test facility is located at the campus of the Delft University of Technology with the purposeto develop new solutions and test critical systems at low speeds (Hardt, 2018a).

In parallel, Hardt announced in the end of 2017 and beginning 2018 the goal to start performingproof-of-technology tests in their 30-meter test tube and later expand it to a 5 km full-scaletest setup (Hardt, 2018c). Besides this, Virgin Hyperloop One and Hardt also approachedthe Dutch government as a partner for building a test facility (Arup et al., 2017). In thereport “Main report: Hyperloop in The Netherlands”, (Arup et al., 2017) analyze whetherthe Dutch government should initiate a decision-making process to invest in a hyperloop testtrack or not. Virgin Hyperloop One is expected to be able to reach a higher TechnologyReadiness Level (TRL) than Hardt, as they have a more elaborated testing facility in the U.S.The report recommends trying to get the testing facility, and by that enhance the knowledgeinfrastructure around the technology, in the Netherlands (Arup et al., 2017). Once the facilityis in place and the testing starts, the certification process and certification procedures willbe developed simultaneously. Further on, expanding the test track to a minimum of 40 kmtrack length, would enable testing and certification for commercial passenger transport atvelocities above 1000 km/h. In this case, focus would be on the development of the regulatorystandards and a framework to govern hyperloop-specific operations (Arup et al., 2017). Oncethe certification is completed, it could be used as a commercial track. Another beneficial aspectfor the Netherlands according to Arup et al. (2017) would be to get more insights into coststhat could be expected for a commercial hyperloop system.

A motion to build a test facility in the Netherlands has been filled, and basically requeststhe government to investigate the financing of a high-speed test track. Not only politicians,but also Dutch Industry are willing to work on the high-speed test facility (Hardt, 2018d).However, no final agreement have been settled yet (Hardt, 2018d).

Hardt Hyperloop have an aggressive ambition, and are currently working together with industry

46

leaders, knowledge institutions, universities and governments to realize the first high-speed testfacility that will be utilized to develop standardized technology for hyperloop routes all acrossthe world (Hardt, 2018a).

TransPod

TransPod was founded in the end of 2016 and gained momentum later that year as it partookin the Innotrans Rail exhibition, in Berlin, where they rapidly draw the attention of severalindustry leaders. Since then they have attracted several partnerships and founding across theworld. In early 2017, TransPod together with partners and experts opened up their first officesin Canada, France and Italy, to exploit the expertise within these regions and to facilitateadvanced research and development of the hyperloop system (TransPod, 2018a). In parallel,TransPod released the first initial cost study, with the findings that the TransPod system wouldcost 50 percent less and travel four times faster than high-speed rail in Southwestern Ontario,Canada (TransPod, 2018a). And later same year, they followed up by the publication of ascientific peer-reviewed paper on the EASD EURODYN 2017 conference, where the physics ofthe TransPod system was presented (TransPod, 2018a).

TransPod’s goal is to accelerate the development of a commercially viable hyperloop systemby 2020 (TransPod, 2018b).

4.1.3 The First Hyperloop System

Several of the hyperloop companies have communicated the ambition of having the first hyper-loop system for fright transportation up and running by 2020 and for passenger transportationby 2021 (Hyperloop Transportation Technologies, 2018a; Virgin Hyperloop One, 2018). Withsuch a short time frame the reliability of that prediction can be questioned. In this section ma-terial from the interviews will be presented in relation to the predicted first hyperloop systemannounced by the hyperloop companies. As the interviews has been performed throughoutthe project, some of the interviews risks being based on not up-to-date information that waspresented in Section 4.1.2.

For the first hyperloop system to become a reality, the system needs to be thoroughly testedand proven safe before deliberations regarding passenger travel can be fruitful. Senior Adviserat ST-Administration (2018) therefore argues that small to medium-scale freight transportsystems could be a good first step as proof-of-concept. Although, one cannot exclude thepossibility of a radical innovation sequence in a short horizon if considerable performanceimprovements is recognized (Senior Adviser at ST-Administration, 2018). Concludingly, SeniorAdviser at ST-Administration (2018) argues that passenger traffic is likely to futuristic fortoday’s society but sees significantly higher possibilities in the freight segment. Although thefact that this would entail heavy financial ventures increases the resistance.

Researcher in Transport Planing (2018) on the other hand, assumes the hyperloop concept toexist somewhere in the world in the future. This since the idea comes from a person that is seenas a guru in the tech community, Elon Musk, which leads to many enthusiasts pursuing theidea and creates a belief that it will solve all problems. Furthermore, in the last years a largeglobal community have been growing with the solely mission to realize hyperloop in the worldand this is identified as another reason for the hyperloop system to be realized somewhere in

47

the world (Member of the parliament (L), 2018). It is not a question of a single companyanymore, but rather thousands of individuals across the world working for this goal (Memberof the parliament (L), 2018). Also Representative of Ramboll (2018) is positive in the subjectas he argues that in the perspective of a working hyperloop system by 2021, he concludesthat a point to point route, with a simple distribution flow for lighter cargo, in for instancea harbor, as not unrealistic nor impossible. Despite this, all the challenges that comes withhuge infrastructure projects, as hyperloop would be, should not be neglected (Member of theparliament (L), 2018).

In that line of though, Representative of Hyperloop Sweden (2018) argues that it took almost100 years for aviation to be developed into the industry we see today. This was however withthe past development rate and with today’s exponential grow rate, it is possible that this couldhappen for hyperloop in just 10 years (Representative of Hyperloop Sweden, 2018). Despitethis, Representative of Hyperloop Sweden (2018) remains skeptical about the realizabilityvision presented by hyperloop companies. The vision is very aggressive especially since noconstruction of such a system has been initiated to date (27th mars 2018). Also Professorin Rail Vehicle Dynamics (2018) argues that the vision of having the first hyperloop systemup and running for freight 2020 and passengers 2021, as mentioned by both HTT and VirginHyperloop One, is unrealistic. This since only planning such a system would take longer thantwo years. Further, process of applying and processing the necessary permits for building thesystem usually takes longer than the envisioned timeframe. Concludingly, Professor in RailVehicle Dynamics (2018) deem the vision highly optimistic.

Most of the focus today (27th mars 2018) lays on different studies and expressions of interest.The potential project that seams to have reached the furthest is the route between Dubai andAbu Dhabi, however a contract for the project is not yet in place and the construction hasnot been initiated (Representative of Hyperloop Sweden, 2018). To have the system up andrunning by 2020, Representative of Hyperloop Sweden (2018) argues that the construction ofthe system should have been started already as it will be very difficult to build such a systemin only 1.5 years.

Regarding the geographical question on where the system could be built, Representative ofFS links (2018) also brings up Dubai as a candidate, but argues that even though Dubai havesimilar regulatory standards as the Nordic regions, the authority has a reputation of not beingvery concerned about following them. Hence, Representative of FS links (2018) argues that noone would use a hyperloop controlled under that authority, especially not in Europe or USA,even though it is possible that hyperloop will happen there. Further, Representative of FS links(2018) rules out USA as a candidate, as their legislations constitute a major problem. Thesystem is obsolete and the process of dealing with damages indicates that a huge remodelingof the laws would be required (Representative of FS links, 2018).

Furthermore, as the Devloop test track by Virgin Hyperloop One currently is to short, apossible reason for this could be insufficient funds to expand it or the reason for not expandingthe test track could be that the location is suboptimal (Lawyers of Setterwalls, 2018). It isprobably better to wait for a green light at some other location to avoid investing to heavy infacilities that will not become a part of a system in the future, however Lawyers of Setterwalls(2018) believe that if hyperloop would have had sufficient funds today, they would develop thecurrent test track.

48

Several European countries are trying to develop hyperloop. Representative of FS links (2018)states that, while there are customers willing to buy, no industry can deliver it on their owntoday. He further argues that the industry that builds the first tracks will most likely also bethe one to export it, implicating a possible window of opportunity for the Nordic region tobe first movers. Representative of FS links (2018) highlights an historical example of how theNordic region in 1981 initiated a collaboration to create a common Nordic standard, the socalled Nordiskt mobiltelefonisystem (NMT), for the telecom industry. Later on, NMT becamethe world standard in the telecom industry and today a large part of the industry is controlledby companies and organizations of the Nordic region. The first customer was in the east, thefirst country to be connected was Netherlands and the same process can be observed todayaccording to Representative of FS links (2018) regarding whether or not to develop hyperloop.Representative of FS links (2018) argues that in a scenarios where Europe would be the firstplace for hyperloop to become a reality, why should it not then be in the Nordic region.

4.2 Performance Indicators

Hyperloop’s performance potential is expected to be superior to both air transport and high-speed rail in terms of cost, travel time, energy consumption and safety (Musk, 2013). Alsotransporting cargo via Hyperloop benefits society through faster travel speeds, reduced trans-portation costs, greater safety, less noise and air pollution, fewer climate effects, smaller carbonfootprints, minimal separation effects, enhanced property efficiency, and lower maintenancecosts (Werner et al., 2016). This section will explore the performance indicators of the tech-nology, trying to provide a holistic view of its competitive nature.

Senior Adviser at ST-Administration (2018) acknowledge that hyperloop would, if the vision isrealized, entail huge potential in terms of efficiency, environmental sustainability and financialbenefits. He further emphasizes that the proposed elevated pipe structure allows for increasedroute flexibility. Altogether, Senior Adviser at ST-Administration (2018) argues that if thesystem performs as suggested, it could reshape the whole transport market of today. This entailsignificant changes in multiple aspects. Hyperloop will alter transportation in deeper levelsand change the structure of society. It will change peoples’ perspective on residing, workingand living to the extent that the world will never be the same as before the introduction ofthe technology (Lawyers of Setterwalls, 2018).

Deputy Research Director at VTI (2018) believe that hyperloop will have the largest perfor-mance impact for passenger transportation, and in particular for citizens traveling within or totheir jobs. The attractiveness of hyperloop is dependent on having stations in the inner cities.If the stations are placed outside the cities, much of the benefits from the system will be lost,as it would require transfer fairs significantly increasing the total travel time. So, station place-ment in the city centers and other transport nodes, enabling swift shifts between transportmodes, will be a requirement for an attractive system (Lawyers of Setterwalls, 2018). Some-thing Professor in Transport Economics (2018) agrees with, claiming that hyperloop will havemost benefits if the larger cities, where todays ground transport sector is dominated by lessefficient solutions, can be connected to each other. Further, Professor in Transport Economics(2018) conclude hyperloop to be one of the few competitive transport solutions present todayfor such applications. Beyond this, the demand could be further enhanced if the transportmode could make housing, and in particular the connection to urban areas, more available, asthis would allow for significantly larger cities (Deputy Research Director at VTI, 2018).

49

Another beneficial aspect is the suggested pod size, taking about 30 people, which will allowfor smaller terminals than for example airplanes. And as the pods are smaller, this will reducethe waiting time for travelers. The fairs can be much smoother and ad-hoc as the passengers donot have to wait for 200-300 people to board the vessel (Representative of Hyperloop Sweden,2018). This is further strengthened by Representative of Ramboll (2018) whom emphasize thathyperloop would possess the capability to outperform domestic flights that have a travel timewithin an hour. In that case, the superior environmental aspect of hyperloop will be the mostimportant one, as environmental emissions currently are not included in the ticket price foraviation industry.

4.2.1 Speed and Travel Time

The first, and perhaps the most commonly mentioned performance indicator of the hyperlooptechnology is speed. The projected velocity of hyperloop is estimated to 480km/h in urbanareas and difficult paths, while reaching speeds up to 1220km/h in regular sections (Werneret al., 2016). As one of the main drivers for the choice of transportation is travel time, it isinteresting to benchmark the velocity of hyperloop in relation to other modes. Hyperloop is,with its maximum speed of 1220km/h, 10-15 times faster than regular trains and 2-3 timesfaster than HSR and Maglev (Hyperloop-One, 2017; Van Goeverden et al., 2017). In com-parison to conventional air travel, with cruise speeds of about 925km/h, hyperloop is still thefaster alternative (Decker et al., 2017). Adding to this, the hyperloop technology is a moreon-demand solution and is unlikely to have the same check-in and waiting times as seen incommercial air travel. Van Goeverden et al. (2017) concludes that hyperloop, under the givenconditions would perform better than air passenger travel and HSR competitors in terms oftotal travel time. Krausz and Honold (2016) further argue that the superior speed perfor-mance can be linked to more effective economic benefits in relation to the current modes oftransportation.

The Alpha Paper, presented by Musk (2013), was formulated as an alternative to an HSRsolution planned to cover the 560km route between Los Angeles and San Francisco. With theestimates presented in this paper, hyperloop is expected to cover this path in 35 minutes at anaverage speed of 970km/h, which can be compared to the 2 hours and 38 minutes with HSR andthe 1 hour and 15 minutes commercial airplanes takes to cover the same distance (Gonzalez-Gonzalez and Nogues, 2017). This puts completely new perspectives on the real-estate marketsince cities located 100 km from each other could be connected by just 10 minutes (Nikitaset al., 2017). The feasibility of the speed estimates presented in the Alpha Paper has beeninvestigated by multiple authors. One of the more thorough studies was performed by Yanget al. (2017) whom, through a series of simulations and tests, concluded that a travel speed ofMach 1 (1224kmh) not only is possible, but also highly achievable for the proposed system.

The greatest benefits with hyperloop will, according to Professor in Rail Vehicle Dynamics(2018), likely be the high speed and energy efficiency that could be achieved through its lowpressure-working environment. Hyperloop is proclaimed to be able to reach speeds similar to,or even surpassing, the ones seen in commercial air travel, while at the same time being a sig-nificantly more environmentally friendly alternative with lower energy consumption (Professorin Rail Vehicle Dynamics, 2018).

Representative of Hyperloop Sweden (2018) on the other hand argue that the most significant

50

advantage of hyperloop is the shorter travel times, rather than the speed itself, as this poten-tially could change society. This way of viewing the benefits of hyperloop is further supportedby Researcher in Transport Planing (2018), whom emphasize that the main competitive char-acteristic of hyperloop is the reduced travel times. It is easy to talk about technology, speedsand vacuum. However, the travel times are a much more significant aspect to emphasize(Representative of Hyperloop Sweden, 2018).

Moreover, Representative of Ramboll (2018) argues that the competitiveness of hyperloopnot necessarily have to be restricted to higher speeds, as shorter travels in the range of 10-15 minutes could be made efficiently with hyperloop even at lower velocities around 300-400km per hour. Hence making the technology competitive in that segment as well. Such ascenario would constitute improvements and economic growth in terms of the amplificationof the regional labor market and be highly competitive to current modes of transportation inregional traffic (Representative of Ramboll, 2018).

4.2.2 Passenger Capacity

An important feature for all types of transportation intended for transporting people is thecapacity of the mode. And as this aspect relates to both the capacity of the specific vesselsand the frequency of which these can be deployed, both characteristics will be discussed in thissection. The first aspect, frequency, relates in a hyperloop context to the head room necessarybetween the pods in the tube. This is directly affecting the capacity rate of the technologyand hence is a highly important aspect to look in to.

In the Alpha Paper, this frequency is estimated to an average departure interval of less than 2minutes, and a peak capacity of 30 seconds per lane (Werner et al., 2016). According to Deckeret al. (2017) there are three factors limiting the pod frequency; the number of pods available,safety and the time it takes to board the pods. In terms of safety, Decker et al. (2017) arguethat the pods need to be spaced out so that each pod can slow down and stop before hittingthe pod in front of it in case of an emergency stop. By using linear acceleration equations,a minimum required distance was calculated for this factor. Decker et al. (2017) determinedthat at a deceleration of 1 g the pods would need 30 seconds to avoid collision, correspondingto a maximum pod frequency of 2 pods per minute. However, Decker et al. (2017) argues thatthe frequency is more likely to be limited by the latter two, boarding time and the number ofpods available. The last factor requires enough available pods to sufficiently fill the tube tosustain the desired pod frequency. As a consequence, Decker et al. (2017) reasons that lowerpod frequencies are desirable because it would increase the safety margin and time to boardthe pods, while reducing the required number of pods.

The second aspect related to passenger capacity is the number of passengers each pod cancarry. In the Alpha paper, the suggested size is 28 passengers per pod (Musk, 2013). Thecompany HTT however design their pods to carry 38 passengers leaving at a frequency of40 seconds. This enables them to offer a on demand solution, as well as a max capacity of164,000 passengers per day (Mack, 2017). In comparison, the maximum estimated capacityfor HSR is 288 000 passengers per day and track (Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2012). Flight capacityon the other hand is harder to estimate. However, according to the statistics presented byTrafik Analys (2018) the average aircraft carrier in Sweden has a passenger capacity of 89.2passengers per plane.

51

The trade-off between frequency and capacity per pod is interesting to examine, especiallyas high frequencies entails less time for passengers to board the pods and requires a largenumber of pods to maintain and manage at the end points of the network (Decker et al.,2017). Decker et al. (2017) estimates that the yearly energy consumption of the system wouldincrease by no more than 15 percent if the number of passengers per pod increases. Thisindicates that the cost associated with changing pod capacity is relatively small, hence makingit theoretical possible for hyperloop operators to adjust the pod capacity to meet a particularmarket demand. Further, Decker et al. (2017) recommend investigating modular hyperlooppods. The pods could then be constructed for a small number of passengers and by linkingthem together, each individual transport could match the specific capacity demand. This way,high densities during peak travel times could be managed, while fewer pods could be linkedtogether at lighter travel times to reduce gross weight and consequently reduce unnecessaryenergy consumption. Decker et al. (2017) also estimates the cost per passenger to rapidlydecline as the passenger capacity for each pod increases.

4.2.3 Environmental Sustainability

Regarding environmental sustainability, hyperloop could provide revolutionary benefits. Therelatively low energy usage predicted, together with a dedication for using green power sources,puts hyperloop in a strong position in relation to other modes of transportation (Krausz andHonold, 2016). Estimates show that a hyperloop system is likely to be less energy demandingthan HSR and air transport, due to less friction with the track, low air resistance and electricalpropulsion (Van Goeverden et al., 2017). Preliminary calculations suggest that hyperloop willbe 2-3 times more energy efficient than HSR and 3-6 times more efficient than air transport(Van Goeverden et al., 2017). Taylor et al. (2016) is somewhat more conservative in theirprojection, proclaiming that the energy use of a hyperloop system could be similar to the onesseen for HSR and maglev systems, which is about 2-3 times more energy efficient than airtransport. Important to note however is that since no full-scale commercial hyperloop systemexists to date, the energy needed to operate such a system is yet uncertain (Van Goeverdenet al., 2017).

One aspect of the hyperloop system that is much emphasized is the use of solar panels mountedon top of the tubes. In the Alpha paper, it is declared that installing these panels wouldgenerate a power surplus for the system, meaning that the generated power from the panelswould be larger than the operational energy used by the system (Musk, 2013). This includesthe systems energy needs during night, cloudy weather and in tunnels (Van Goeverden et al.,2017). And concludingly, no other forms of less sustainable energy would be needed (Krauszand Honold, 2016).

However, the calculations presented in the Alpha paper is made in respect to the climate inCalifornia, with beneficial solar conditions. New estimates therefore need to be made for otherparts of the world (Werner et al., 2016). According to Werner et al. (2016), whom performeda feasibility study for a hyperloop system in Northern Germany, the solar panels would notbe sufficient to supply the system in this geographical location. In fact, they even reach theconclusion that there is no effective use of solar energy possible for the specific conditions inNorthern Germany. Although, as hyperloop is expected to be more energy efficient than thecontemporary modes of transportation, it could still be an environmentally viable alternative,even without the solar panels (Van Goeverden et al., 2017). And for the areas where solar

52

panels are viable, the implementation of hyperloop could prove to be an important step towardsindependence from fossil fuels (Krausz and Honold, 2016).

Another central sustainability aspect is noise pollution, which impacts both human and animallife (Stansfeld and Matheson, 2003). Disturbances above 85 dB can generate mere annoyanceto hearing damage and greater risk of cardiovascular disease (Van Essen et al., 2011). Thehyperloop solution is in its design relatively quiet and hardly produce any noise affecting theexternal environment (Van Goeverden et al., 2017; Werner et al., 2016). The chance of externalnoise reaching damaging levels is considered small, and tube design can be adjusted to reducethis even further (Werner et al., 2016). The vibrations transferred from the pods to the tubestructure is very limited since there is practically no contact between the two during travel,noise produced by the pod itself will not be heard outside the tube and noise from moving thecapsule will be limited by the low-pressure environment, and most likely below the damaginglevel (50 dB) (Van Goeverden et al., 2017; Werner et al., 2016). This is a major differencecompared to air and rail transport which emits significant noise levels to the surroundings.

As one of the advantages of hyperloop, Representative of Ramboll (2018) mention the superiorenvironmental efficiency of the system as it requires less energy once the system runs. Further,Deputy Research Director at VTI (2018) identifies hyperloop as a fast and environmentalsustainable transportation mode, due to its fully electrification, especially compared to theair travel. Aviation is very energy consuming, and it would thereof be a highly importantstep towards a more sustainable transport sector to receive a competitive alternative withlower environmental implications (Head of Technology and Railway at ST-Agency, 2018).Deputy Research Director at VTI (2018) acknowledge the possibility to decrease the demandfor aviation on specific routes as one of the most important advantages with hyperloop. Andfurther concludes that the sustainability debate related to electric vehicles have lacked in theperspectives of battery size, total life cycle impact and in including the sustainability aspectof the power sources (Deputy Research Director at VTI, 2018). Member of the parliament(L) (2018) argue that the best way to achieve a more sustainable transport sector wouldbe to radically increase or implement taxes on emission. This could be complemented bymore defined directions on what alternative technologies that are worth investing in. And inthat direction, Member of the parliament (L) (2018) is skeptical that an HSR transportationsolution, reaching 350 km per hour and costs a fortune, would be the desired sustainable futureof Sweden.

4.2.4 Passenger Comfort

A significant factor for all modes of transportation is human interaction, and especially passen-ger comfort. Passenger comfort is something that Nikitas et al. (2017) identifies as a potentialchallenge for hyperloop. The travel mode entails riding in narrow and windowless pods insidesealed tunnels, with significant acceleration forces and questionable noise levels due to com-pressed and deducted air around the capsule when traveling at near-sonic speeds. However,both Virgin Hyperloop One and Hardt declares that their aim is to deliver hyperloop withcomparable passenger comfort as conventional air travel in terms of acceleration and vibra-tions (Arup et al., 2017). Although, since these parameters are correlated to the velocity andacceleration of the pods, this can pose as a delimiting factor for hyperloop, especially in curvesand acceleration phases (Arup et al., 2017).

53

Even if it is technically possible to manage or reduce the impact of these critical aspects andhence making the journey relatively smooth, smallest deviations from a straight path maygenerate substantial discomfort and even frightful experiences for the passengers (Nikitas etal., 2017). And as hyperloop is still under development, little is known about the actualcomfort levels. More thorough testing is therefore necessary to verify the systems comfortperformance. This being mentioned, it is expected that passengers will need to be seatedduring travel, wearing seatbelts, as when flying (Arup et al., 2017).

Beyond the acceleration limits, several companies, amongst HTT, have presented solutions toenhance the customer experience and eliminate the apprehension of traveling in narrow andwindowless pods in closed tunnels. For this cause, an augmented window are proposed, similarto a large digital screen in the size of a regular window, where information of the trip can bedisplayed and a preferred environment that can be chosen by the passenger to impose comfortand entertainment throughout the trip (Hyperloop Transportation Technologies, 2018a).

4.2.5 Safety

In contrast to current modes of transportation, that almost exclusively depend on humanpilots, hyperloop is proposed as a fully automated system, minimizing the human interaction,hence also the human errors behind a major part of accidents today. This is expected tomake hyperloop safer and more reliable than comparable alternatives (Werner et al., 2016;Van Goeverden et al., 2017). For the safety of the passengers onboard hyperloop, a numberof internal safety measures have been put forward. For example, in case of emergency, thesystem is equipped with interconnected emergency brakes, able to activate all together in caseof critical failure and each pod will have oxygen masks for the passengers (Van Goeverdenet al., 2017). Moreover, each pod will be equipped with emergency power, powering the lifesupport functions and a wheel system, enabling the pods to move to the nearest emergencyexit (Werner et al., 2016). Although, as pointed out by Van Goeverden et al. (2017), many ofthese safety features and potential safety issues still needs to be further examined and is yetto be implemented in the prototypes. However, Arup et al. (2017) see them as solvable, andargues that most of the security related issues of hyperloop bares resemblance to the ones ofaviation and train tunnels. Although they reckon that all safety measures need to be in placeand fully certified before commercial transport can be initiated.

Concerning people and environment outside the tubes, hyperloop poses very few risks. Ashyperloop is a closed transport system, all external interaction with the system, such as otherforms of transport, humans and the direct environment, will be prevented. Hence, hyperloopwill not pose any direct risks for its surroundings. Seemingly, hyperloop has an advantagein this regard in relation to air, road and rail transport (Van Goeverden et al., 2017). Forexample, for the Northern German hyperloop system delineated by Werner et al. (2016), theauthors propose that the system could replace 214-380,000 trucks annually, and by doing soavoid 922-1660 accidents yearly, 80-144 of which have fatal outcomes.

Regarding the safety concerns of hyperloop, such as technical failures, tests needs to be con-ducted to ensure that corresponding security levels as other current modes of transportationcan be reached (Representative of Ramboll, 2018). A physical test facility to perform thesetests is therefore necessary. In a global perspective, Representative of Ramboll (2018) arguesthat European countries most likely will demand a specific hyperloop certification from EU and

54

reject external certifications. Although tests practically and theoretically could be performedoutside the borders of EU, Representative of Ramboll (2018) argues that it is preferable toperform them in the physically climatological and geological context where the system shouldbe implemented. There will also be a psychological aspect of certification, where the accep-tance of these kinds of systems require careful, reliable and thorough testing (Representativeof Ramboll, 2018).

Representative of Ramboll (2018) argues that hyperloop could constitute as a robust mode oftransportation in comparison to the current modes, as all parts that are sensitive to externalimpact, such as collisions with wild animals, snowfall or fallen trees, will be inside the tube.This feature will significantly reduce the delays and risks of disturbances in the daily operationsof the system. Something that, with respect to Sweden’s climate condition, is a substantialproblem in current railway network (Representative of Ramboll, 2018). Regarding the uncer-tainties of security, Representative of Hyperloop Sweden (2018) makes the metaphor to whenpeople were questioning how we would dare to send up passengers 10000 meters above groundin airplanes where the chance of survival, if something goes wrong, is almost zero. Also Lawyersof Setterwalls (2018) argues that airplanes are much more dangerous than hyperloop due to thehigh altitude and the fact that there is fuel surrounding the passengers. Hyperloop operatesat ground level without hazardous ignitable liquids. Air travel is widely accepted today, sothere is no reason for hyperloop to be deemed to unsafe for commercial practice (Lawyers ofSetterwalls, 2018). There are two main problematic aspects in terms of safety for hyperloop,critical pressure change and collisions, whilst there for airplanes are significantly more criticalaspects to consider. Critical pressure change can only occur through critical leakage caused bynatural disasters leading to structural failure or by an act of terror. The second safety aspect,risk of collision, demand sophisticated and well-developed control systems, enabling pots to bephased in and out of the system at a 1000kmh.

Head of Technology and Railway at ST-Agency (2018) on the other side, raises one concernregarding the safety, or rather security, of the system. Like aviation and other modes of masstransportation, these systems are exposed to terrorism and destruction. But the fact that thesystem, and in particular the tubes, can be accessed by anyone from outside can be identifiedas a subject that potentially requires significant work to make acceptable and secure for thepublic (Head of Technology and Railway at ST-Agency, 2018). The risk for this happeningcan however be decreased by deciding to have the pipes below ground (Lawyers of Setterwalls,2018).

When it comes to hyperloop in Sweden, Head of Technology and Railway at ST-Agency (2018)brings up that potential hyperloop systems would have to fulfil the same requirements as theother modes of transportation in the aspect of traffic safety. The process must include system-atic risk management in the ways of designing and building the system, eliminating risk at allstages (Head of Technology and Railway at ST-Agency, 2018). And further complemented bysome kind of analysis on how often critical safety errors might occur, and this rate has to becomparable to other modes of transportation (Head of Technology and Railway at ST-Agency,2018).

55

4.2.6 Costs

Currently, the cost estimations for building the required hyperloop infrastructure varies greatly.However, most researchers seem to agree that the initial cost estimates presented in the Alphapaper are unrealistically low. In the first proposal, connecting San Francisco and Los Angeles,two cost estimates were proposed, tubes on pylons and tubes in tunnels. Converted to euros,these estimates were 10,3 million euro and 34 million euro per kilometer respectively (VanGoeverden et al., 2017). In contrast, building the rout between Stockholm and Helsinki istoday estimated to cost around 35 million euros/km and another potential rout between Dubaiand Abu Dhabi has been estimated to cost 30 million euros/km, costs that are well above theones for HSR and more in the magnitude of maglev (Gonzalez-Gonzalez and Nogues, 2017).However, one should acknowledge that both these routs have long sub-sea sections which likelydrives up the costs.

Estimating the cost for non-existing systems, such as hyperloop, tend to be very difficult andis surrounded by substantial uncertainties. Since many of the technical specifications is yet tobe determined, reviewing cost estimates at this point should take this ambiguity into account(Arup et al., 2017). The costs can be broken down in three categories; capital, operational andoverhead costs, where capital costs relate to costs of building the infrastructure and purchasingthe pods. And the operating costs regard costs of operating and maintaining the system (VanGoeverden et al., 2017). For all these aspects there are multiple parameters affecting the costs,from geographical conditions, station intensity and the sizes of the pods to whether to usesolar power or not (Decker et al., 2017).

The cost aspect will be an important and determining factor for the adoption of hyperloop,if the costs escalate to high, hyperloop will not be a viable alternative in most parts of theworld. The technology will then be limited to only a few systems globally (Professor in RailVehicle Dynamics, 2018). Researcher in Transport Planing (2018) agrees that the cost of a fullyfunctioning system will be one of the most critical aspect related to the adoption of hyperloop.As an example, Maglev, which offer shorter travel times than conventional rail has not beensuccessful, and the main reason for this is that it is more expensive. This is not sufficientlycompensated by lower travel times and increased number of passengers. If hyperloop, whenfully developed, proves more expensive than conventional rail, this will pose as a problem forthe diffusion of the technology (Researcher in Transport Planing, 2018).

It is very hard to forecast the actual costs of hyperloop today as no system has been built.And while the companies developing the technology have very optimistic predictions, evenlower than for conventional HSR, the credibility of these estimates could be considered low(Professor in Rail Vehicle Dynamics, 2018). Early cost predictions of new systems have atendency of being low and then escalate. However, according to Representative of HyperloopSweden (2018) the costs for building hyperloop would be in the rage from half to equal thecost of building conventional HSR. Something Professor in Rail Vehicle Dynamics (2018) findsunlikely with the argument that a system that requires long vacuum tubes to operate mostlikely would not be less expensive than conventional railways. Ultimately, leading to theassumption that hyperloop will become a matter of costs and high investments, and hyperloopmust therefore display significant benefits to be viable (Professor in Rail Vehicle Dynamics,2018).

The cost is so far to uncertain to classify as a competitive aspect of the technology and

56

Researcher in Transport Planing (2018) remains skeptical to the figures presented for hyperloopin the early stages. More knowledge is necessary from large scale tests and how the developmentproceeds, to give accurate estimates of how financially viable a hyperloop system would be(Researcher in Transport Planing, 2018). Many development projects fail as they reach theconclusion that the product becomes too expensive. Researcher in Transport Planing (2018)believes that hyperloop underestimates the difficulty of solving the technical issues, and thatsolving these issues will be more expensive than predicted, leading to a more expensive finalproduct. And if the cost increase to much, hyperloop will not be able to compete with air andrail transport.

To understand the upper acceptable cost for hyperloop, a business case including approxima-tions of traffic revenues, traffic volumes, costs of building the system, economic and technicallife expectancy, together with estimations on operational and maintenance costs needs to beestablished. And from that case, a corresponding business model needs to be developed (Repre-sentative of Ramboll, 2018). Representative of Ramboll (2018) argues that hyperloop possiblycould become less expensive than HSR in such a business case, as HSR’s travel volume islimited and the network of end nodes does not include as many residents.

Infrastructure

According to the Alpha Paper (Musk, 2013), the overall cost for the tube, vacuum pumps andstations is approximated to 4,4 billion euro for the 3.3m in diameter version of hyperloop onthe proposed route between San Francisco and Los Angeles, about 70% of the cost consistsof tube related expenses. This however does not include the cost for propulsion linear motorsand solar panels. The propulsion elements needed for the route is estimated to a total costof 566 million euro (Musk, 2013). Hence, the motor is a considerable cost driver of the totalsystem. The cost estimates proposed by Virgin Hyperloop One and Hardt, for the propulsionsystem, is about half of what is proposed by independent sources. And since both companiesare still in a development phase, judging the accuracy of their estimates is very challenging(Arup et al., 2017). In relation to the estimated cost for building HSR on the same route, whichis estimated to 56,1 billion euro, hyperloop seems to have a considerable financial advantage(Musk, 2013). However, Van Goeverden et al. (2017) argues that it is more likely that the costsfor hyperloop will be in the same magnitude as for maglev, which is about double the costof Musk’s estimates. Furthermore, research made by Arup et al. (2017) concludes a 60-80%difference in the cost of tubes in relation to the estimates proposed by Virgin Hyperloop Oneand Hardt.

The total cost for the hyperloop system is also dependent on the number of switches necessary.This since the switches are significantly more costly than normal track. Virgin Hyperloop Oneestimates that a switch will cost about 3 times as much as a normal track segment but couldpotentially increase to as much as 6 times. Hardt and the research by Arup et al. (2017) on theother hand estimates that 2 times the cost of a normal track segment should be sufficient (Arupet al., 2017). Regarding the terminals or stations, Musk predicted that the cost for a hyperloopstation to be in the magnitude of 102 million euro, a figure that is significantly higher thanthe costs for a maglev station. Though, as hyperloop operates in a low-pressure environment,stations will be significantly more complex than maglev stations. Hence, the cost estimateproposed by Musk could be accurate for a single line hyperloop station (Van Goeverden et al.,2017). However, it is important to acknowledge that no such station exists today, not even as

57

a prototype, why predicting the costs at this point is difficult and includes considerable risksof errors.

For the travel over land, Decker et al. (2017) identifies that there is a correlation between thepylon distance and the thickness of the tube. And because of this, the cost calculations forthe infrastructure becomes an optimization function of these parameters. Furthermore, Deckeret al. (2017) recognize that the hyperloop structure can be favorably scaled with pod capacity.According to their calculations, doubling the pod mass results in a less than 2 percent changein pylon spacing, regardless of the given tube area. Concludingly, the tube mass is decisivefrom a structural design perspective, and the pod capacity can be scaled and modified withminimal impact on the structural design (Decker et al., 2017).

According to Musk’s estimates, hyperloop tunnels would cost about 34 million euro per kilo-meter, or 68 million euro per kilometer for a double tube tunnel (Van Goeverden et al., 2017).Furthermore, Musk (2013) argues that costs related to tunnels for the smaller version of hy-perloop will be far more reasonable than conventional rail and road tunnels. Van Goeverdenet al. (2017) however reasons the, when approximating potential costs for hyperloop tunnels,looking at costs for comparable rail and road tunnels can give reasonable estimations. Buildingthe two single-track Gotthard tunnels in Switzerland cost about 170 million euro per kilome-ter (Van Goeverden et al., 2017). However, the tunnels have a diameter of about 9m, whilea hyperloop tunnel would be significantly smaller. Hence, an accurate estimate of a doubletube hyperloop tunnel cost could be in the magnitude of one single-track rail tunnel, about 85million euro per kilometer.

For underwater hyperloop structures the design parameters become different. Because of thebuoyancy, the role of the supporting structures will change from holding up the tubes tostabilizing it against currents, tides and seismic activity (Decker et al., 2017). The tubethickness becomes a critical design parameter as the ambient pressure change significantlydepending on the depth. For large depths, the tube thickness needs to be increased, hencethe material costs would be increased. From structural trade studies, Decker et al. (2017)indicates that underwater traveling could be beneficial, as depth could be chosen to optimizetube thickness. Furthermore, it is likely that obstacles and geographical unevenness can beavoided, making it easier to construct straight paths (Decker et al., 2017).

As the land used to accommodate transport systems in general cannot be utilized for otherpurposes, apart from underground systems, an opportunity cost can be identified. As hyperloopis proposedly elevated on pillars, the land occupied by the infrastructure will be a function ofthe size and distance between these pillars and land value (Van Goeverden et al., 2017). Howeffectively the space between the pillars can be used is still to be investigated, and the aspectof visual pollution needs to be considered, which is likely to be increased with the altitude ofthe structure. The expected pillar separation of 30m is a further limiting factor for what theland in between can be used for. The land value will be heavily dependent on the specific routeof the line, even if the effective land use of hyperloop can be limited by elevating the structure(Van Goeverden et al., 2017). Commonly, the gross area of land for new infrastructure can beminimized by planning it in close proximity to existing infrastructure. The net area neededfor hyperloop is expected to around 0,4ha per kilometer, with a gross area estimation of 1,0ha/km. This is much more efficient than comparable land bound transport infrastructure.However, the velocity and technological characteristics of hyperloop demands straighter paths

58

than for example HSR, which limits the flexibility of routing and likely drives up the cost ofland (Van Goeverden et al., 2017).

The cost estimates for hyperloop pods display significant differences between different actors.As an example, the difference in estimates of pod costs between Virgin Hyperloop One andHardt differ a factor 3 (Arup et al., 2017). In the Alpha paper, the overall cost for the 3,3 meterof diameter version hyperloop pod is estimated to 1,2 million euro (Musk, 2013). However,Van Goeverden et al. (2017) argues that it is more reasonable to estimate the cost of hyperlooppods by benchmarking the already existing maglev trains. By looking in to the cost per seatfor a maglev train and transferring it to the smaller hyperloop pods, they derive that a morereasonable estimate of the hyperloop pod is 4,8 million euros, more than three times what wassuggested in the Alpha paper. In another paper, Arup et al. (2017) makes similar assumptions.They take the average of the relative cost for trans-rapid trains and an airbus planes, and fromthat predicts what a passenger pod would cost. The reasonability of their findings where laterverified in discussions with Virgin Hyperloop One. However, the concluding cost predictionwere equal to about the sum of Hardts and Virgin Hyperloop Ones own estimates (Arup et al.,2017). Although, the technology enables external power storage and propulsion, significantlyreducing the complexity of the pods, which likely will reflect positively on the pod costs (Deckeret al., 2017).

Representative of Hyperloop Sweden (2018) compares hyperloop to HSR and emphasizes that,when looking at HSR, it can be concluded that the technology requires vast amounts of land,rail, embankments, electrical systems and surrounding security systems. This can be comparedto hyperloops elevated structure, with two pipes on a pillar, significantly reducing the amountof required land. Representative of Ramboll (2018) argues that ground, underground or pillarstructures will be cheaper in the hyperloop case because of the simplicity of the design. Itrequires smaller pipes, smaller diameter and hence less mass to remove than correspondingrailway systems (Representative of Ramboll, 2018). And constructing the pipes will not bethat difficult, the pipes are more or less empty, except from linear electric motors evenly spreadout on the route (Representative of Hyperloop Sweden, 2018). Although the first system likelywill be more expensive than conventional rail, it should become cheaper when the systemscales (Representative of Ramboll, 2018). This is commonly the case for new technology andRepresentative of Hyperloop Sweden (2018) argues that the high initial costs will be boundto the R&D projects, finding cost efficient solutions, and the first system, but will not be aconcern for future systems.

Other aspects to consider could be if the planned route of a hyperloop system requires inte-gration with urban areas, and in that case how this integration can be solved (Representativeof Ramboll, 2018). Representative of Ramboll (2018) underlines that tubes above ground canbe challenging to integrate with current infrastructure and thus the only appropriate solu-tion could be to build tunnels. The solution to this integration will have significantly impacton the total costs of the project, but also on the finance and business models of the system(Representative of Ramboll, 2018).

Maintenance and Operating Costs

According to the World Bank, maintaining a railway infrastructure significantly depends onthe intensity of the use, from a few percent to around 30% of the capital costs (Van Goeverden

59

et al., 2017). Based on this and making the assumption that a hyperloop system would beheavily used, a relatively high maintenance costs can be predicted. However, as hyperloophas no physical contact between the track and pods, the maintenance costs are likely to besignificantly lower than for conventional railways. Furthermore, hyperloop operates in a closedenvironment, reducing maintenance cost related to weather tare to a minimum (Decker et al.,2017). From this Van Goeverden et al. (2017) estimates that the annual maintenance will bearound 10% of the annual capital costs. Werner et al. (2016) on the other hand argues thathyperloop will have negligible, non-routine, maintenance costs due to the benefit of its aircushion suspension.

Breaking down the operating costs for hyperloop, it mainly consists of staff and traffic man-agement. Energy costs is usually included in operating costs as well, but as hyperloop issuggested to be self-powered by solar panels, this technology becomes a special case (Van Go-everden et al., 2017). Although, as pointed out by Werner et al. (2016), this is based on thebeneficial solar conditions in California. For other parts of the world, the solar panels willnot be sufficient to supply the system with energy. As of this, calculations were made foran externally supplied hyperloop system in northern Germany, estimating the annual energyexpenses to be in the range of 18-58 million euros. In addition to this, other operating costwas estimated to add an additional 80% to this figure (Werner et al., 2016). Interestingly, theoperating costs seem to be negatively related to velocity. This since most cost parameters aretime related, giving a lower cost per km ration with increased velocity (Van Goeverden et al.,2017). This gives hyperloop a comparatively low-cost estimate in relation to other modes oftransportation. Adding to this competitive edge, the only cost component that is positivelyrelated to distance is energy cost, which, as previously mentioned, can be discarded in somecases (Van Goeverden et al., 2017).

Another factor that motivates the relatively low-cost projection is the low-pressure workingenvironment. The low-pressure reduces the resistance, which means that once you reached acertain speed this speed is kept without needing to supply more energy. Trains on the otherhand constantly wrestles the air resistance and therefore needs a continuous supply of energytoo keep their speed (Representative of Hyperloop Sweden, 2018). Representative of HyperloopSweden (2018) argues the operational and maintenance costs for hyperloop to be a tenth ofthe levels seen for HSR. Systems with low lifetime costs has an advantage in the financialdiscussion. If the calculation of lifetime costs, including socio-economic factors, display lowerlevels for hyperloop that for other alternatives, then the financial aspect will no longer be anissue. The benefits in comparison to current systems have then been proven, which definitelywill be positive for the technology (Researcher in Transport Planing, 2018).

4.3 Challenges and Concerns

As hyperloop is under a critical development phase, several aspects still need to be addressed.These uncertainties are surrounded by concerns and can prove a great challenge to overcome.A range of such concerns are introduced in literature and identified through interviews andwill be presented in this section.

First of all, Nikitas et al. (2017) proclaims that there is an underestimation of factors such ascost of infrastructure and maintenance, vulnerability to accidents and seismic activity as well asthe need for emergency evacuation and operating possibilities when equipment malfunctions.

60

Furthermore, the ability to expand and scale up the proposed design raise questions, as itwould affect a wide range of design parameters (Decker et al., 2017). The speed proposedfor hyperloop also comes with concerns regarding the curve radius necessary for comfortablerides. Some calculations show that a 15-mile radius curve would be equivalent to a 1.5g pull atmax speed, which is considered high (Ross, 2016). The originally proposed route between LosAngeles and San Francisco enables a quite straight line, uninterrupted, construction. For otherroutes however, geographical topography could be less beneficial, challenging the proposedspeeds and functionality of hyperloop (Palacin, 2016). Concludingly, Ross (2016) derive thathyperloop require very sophisticated analysis of speed, course and sensation when determiningthe routes.

From a technical viewpoint, a solution for a switching technology, allowing full speed in alldirections, is yet to be developed. This will be necessary to enable high pod frequencies andhence high passenger capacity, and the design of these switches will further impact the optimalchoice of guidance and levitation system (Arup et al., 2017). Airlocks is another technicalchallenge identified by Arup et al. (2017). To allow for loading and unloading of hyperloop podsinside the evacuated tube, without re-pressurizing the whole tube, airlocks will be essential.Further, as the proposed pod frequency is high, this will necessitate multiple parallel operatingairlocks to enable efficient boarding. However, these airlocks will likely be based on existingvacuum technologies, lowering the technological risks involved in the development (Arup et al.,2017). Another aspect that is heavily discussed is thermal expansion, while Schulz et al. (2017)deem it unlikely that it will cause significant damage to the structure, the thermal expansionwill be significant, and it is thus recognized that substantial expansion joints will be required.In addition, there is still many questions to be answered about safety and comfort relatedfeatures of the technology (Ross, 2016).

As a large barrier for hyperloop, Member of the parliament (L) (2018) mention the probability,or rather question, if hyperloop will be able to reach the incredible speeds that is promised.Further, Professor in Rail Vehicle Dynamics (2018) identifies the relatively early stage of de-velopment that hyperloop currently is in as a drawback. Representative of Hyperloop Sweden(2018) points out that there are a number of uncertainties regarding the technical aspects ofhyperloop, e.g. the safety of traveling in vacuum, how to switch pods between different tracksand tubes, the necessary safety systems as well as a traffic system, that needs to be tested andcertificated by government agencies. Researcher in Transport Planing (2018) argues that thepotential drawbacks of the hyperloop technology will depend on the solutions found for thetechnical problems encountered. For example, as hyperloop is proposed to operate in a low-pressure environment, large amounts of energy will be required to maintain that pressure, asit is impossible to make the system completely leakage free (Researcher in Transport Planing,2018). Furthermore, critical pressure failure could have catastrophic consequences as the podswould then collide with an airwall. Such a failure could be an effect of a human or technicalerror, or an act of terror. And how to solve this matter technically, if it is even possible tosolve, is hard to envision (Researcher in Transport Planing, 2018).

As the public have very limited insight into the current status of the technical process andsolutions, it is very hard to gain a comprehensive understanding of how far they have reached(Professor in Rail Vehicle Dynamics, 2018). On a short term, Representative of Ramboll (2018)emphasizes the aspect of solving the technical concerns related to the hyperloop system, and todemonstrate the technical feasibility of the system as the most crucial and urgent challenge of

61

hyperloop. This is further supported by Member of the parliament (L) (2018) whom proclaimsthat before hyperloop could become relevant, higher degrees of proof-of-technology needs tobe shown.

The logistic issues in the transportation from door-to-door is another concern for hyperloopaccording to Deputy Research Director at VTI (2018), and how such a solution would be inthe future has not been seen yet. The logistic aspects such as station placement will affect thecompetitiveness of hyperloop. If the stations are placed outside the urban areas, this wouldrequire passengers to take transfer fares to get to their start and end destinations, negativelyaffecting the value of the travel mode. If on the other hand the stations are placed inside thecities, the accessibility will be increased. However, this will also increase the costs, especially ifmultiple stations are proposed (Researcher in Transport Planing, 2018). The dream scenariowould be having a fine mesh with many entries so that you can access the system nearby(Representative of Hyperloop Sweden, 2018). This is where Elon Musks Boring Companycomes in, they can drill efficiently creating a fine mesh of hyperloop tunnels under the cities.However, a regulation must be in place regulating the minimum size of the tunnels, safetytunnels and so on. This will unfortunately increase the cost of the projects, but it is somethingthat will be required. It becomes a matter of how small and efficient you can build the mesh(Representative of Hyperloop Sweden, 2018).

Representative of Ramboll (2018) mention that processes of legislation, standards and regula-tions still needs to be addressed and Representative of FS links (2018) identifies the politicalawareness as one of the largest barriers for hyperloop to become a reality in the Nordic region.An additional critical challenge for hyperloop is the claustrophobic perception of traveling ina closed capsule, in a closed tube. This aspect could inhibit the acceptance of the technol-ogy. Propositions for virtual means to decrease the feeling of confinement have been proposed,but there is limited knowledge of how travelers actually will value this aspect (Researcher inTransport Planing, 2018). Furthermore, Deputy Research Director at VTI (2018) questionsthe visual integration of the physical hyperloop tubes as a barrier for the transportation modeand makes the parallel to visual considerations when planning to build highways and the gen-eral constructions of roads. Head of Technology and Railway at ST-Agency (2018) identifiesthat building larger transport systems on the ground is challenging, as this process can be veryextensive and time consuming. Moreover, another limitation for hyperloop would be that itmost likely will not solely be able to fulfill the demand of cargo transportation, but rather bea complementing asset in the transport network (Deputy Research Director at VTI, 2018).

Deputy Research Director at VTI (2018) identifies financing as the largest challenge for hy-perloop. Member of the parliament (L) (2018) concurs and emphasize that the most crucialbarrier likely is how expensive the system will become. He projects it most likely that the costof the final system will not be as low as it originally was advertised. But argues that the criticalcriteria will be on how the costs are in comparison to alternative modes of transportation, andin particular the HSR alternative. In a scenario where the costs end up very high, a high trafficvolume will be required. Hence, the travel volumes must be sufficient to justify the investmentrequired for the system (Member of the parliament (L), 2018). Deputy Research Director atVTI (2018) agrees with that sufficient travel volumes is required to motivate a system.

One of the largest challenges for hyperloop is the heavy infrastructure investments that has beenmade historically in conventional and old technologies, leading to a passivity in considering new,

62

more radical alternatives (Representative of Ramboll, 2018). As an example, Representativeof Ramboll (2018) makes the metaphor about the 90s, if someone were to present the conceptof making bank errands and online purchases on a smartphone the public would laugh andcall it crazy. Similar lack of vision can be observed for disruptive systems such as hyperloop(Representative of Ramboll, 2018). In addition, Representative of Ramboll (2018) mentionshow the decision-making process of projects, involving new technology, large costs and where noprevious experience exists, can result in general caution and political tensions (Representativeof Ramboll, 2018).

Although there are technical issues still to be figured out regarding the hyperloop technol-ogy, none of them seems impossible to overcome according to Lawyers of Setterwalls (2018).Further, the technical questions about hyperloop are argued to not be as large at the socialquestions involved, related to integration of the technology in society (Lawyers of Setterwalls,2018).

63

Chapter Summary

In this chapter a description of the hyperloop technology and how this concept is intended toconstitute the next mode of transportation has been outlined. As the hyperloop concept hasprogressed rapidly recent years, each company behind the hyperloop concept was presented withrespect to their respective progressions up till today. Several companies are daily working toprove the hyperloop transportation mode viable and feasible for commercial utilization. How-ever, the focus seems to currently be on building test tracks to validate the performances of thesystem, meanwhile several partnerships are being signed across the world with governments,transport authorities and related industries. Moreover, the companies have aggressive and am-bitious goals for the first hyperloop system, and hence empirical data from the interviews havebeen set in relation to these predictions. Lastly, as a fundamental determiner when it comesto the successful diffusion of hyperloop or not, empirics related to the systems performanceindicators (speed, travel time, passenger capacity, environmental sustainability, comfort, safetyand costs) have been outlined. And further complemented by the challenges and concerns em-phasized in the literature and interviewees.

64

5 Hyperloop and the Market

To understand how hyperloop would fit into, and be accepted by the market, a number of aspectsconcerning the dynamics and denominators related to this is obtainable in this section. Firstly,market acceptance and market segmentation of hyperloop is presented based on empirical dataprovided by the conducted interviews, complemented by the literature review. Following this,empirics related to travel trends and demand is outlined, succeeded by a section exploringticket prices. Furthermore, this chapter presents empirics associated to hyperloops relationto society, the potential socio-economic benefits received from the system, together with thepotential economic impact as an innovation leader. Lastly, the currently most prominent groundtransportation technology debated in Sweden, High-Speed Rail (HSR), is in explained.

5.1 Market Acceptance

In the context of hyperloop as a transportation solution, there is no doubt that several criticalaspects of the technology have to be considered for a successful market acceptance (HyperloopTransportation Technologies, 2018a). However, Musk (2013) argues that hyperloop couldpotentially be the alternative radical technology whom possess the essential performancesimprovements necessary to reach acceptance on the market.

When introducing the concept of hyperloop to new people, there is, as common when presentinga new technology, variations in how it is received. There is always so called early adopters, orinnovators, that are positive to the idea and see the benefits with it. However, the majorityusually remain skeptical and question the concept (Representative of Hyperloop Sweden, 2018).The majority often look for errors or shortcomings in the design and are generally hard topersuade before the concept has been commercially proven. Moreover, Head of Technology andRailway at ST-Agency (2018) identifies that it might be some inertia in attracting passengersto the mode. The acceptance of the public might be delayed as concerns regarding if the systemreally is safe make the public less open minded to the diffusion of new disruptive systems andthis transition can take time (Head of Technology and Railway at ST-Agency, 2018).

Senior Adviser at ST-Administration (2018) concludes hyperloop to be very futuristic andthat it would require large societal changes, both in terms of societal life and human behavior.Hence, hyperloop could come to meet substantial resistance, especially as these changes arevery hard to predict (Senior Adviser at ST-Administration, 2018). A comparable historicalcase is the resistance the railways needed to overcome in the late 19th century, when manyargued that the speeds would be harmful and even deadly for humans. Similar discussionscould arise concerning hyperloop, but this time perhaps in terms of a general hesitation toaccept new disruptive technology (Senior Adviser at ST-Administration, 2018). Professor inRail Vehicle Dynamics (2018) on the other hand, argues that for a new mode of transportationto gain acceptance, it needs to have comparable travel times to air travel and at the same timehave reasonable cost. He especially emphasizes the cost aspect, as it often becomes the focusof the discussion.

Professor in Rail Vehicle Dynamics (2018) recognize clear boundary effects related to theintroduction of a completely new system of infrastructure. The ability to integrate hyperloopwith the existing infrastructure system together with the cost of building it will have significanteffects on the acceptance of the technology. As hyperloop require completely new infrastructure

65

and that it is not compatible with existing systems, it will be necessary for hyperloop to displayvery large benefits. This since the old system already is in place and the stations are builtfor this technology (Professor in Rail Vehicle Dynamics, 2018). As an example, Professor inRail Vehicle Dynamics (2018) brings up that China was aiming on a large system of Maglevconnections. They started by building one part of this system, but later decided to changedirection and go with conventional HSR instead. Most likely they reached the conclusionthat the benefits of Maglev were not great enough to balance the inconvenience of not fittingthe existing station network and the relatively high cost (Professor in Rail Vehicle Dynamics,2018). Professor in Rail Vehicle Dynamics (2018) mentions that it is possible that hyperloopcould offer benefits large enough to motivate adopting the technology, however, it will likelyhinder the diffusion of the technology.

As a subsequent challenge for the diffusion of hyperloop, Deputy Research Director at VTI(2018) identifies that the owning structure of infrastructure differ between countries. In Swe-den, the government owns the railway infrastructure meanwhile the vehicles are operated byprivate organizations. This differs significantly from USA where both railways and vehicles areowned by private organizations or in Germany where both railways and vehicles are owned bythe government (Deputy Research Director at VTI, 2018).

5.2 Market Segmentation

Hyperloop as a transportation solution possesses the opportunity to offer faster door-to-doortransportation for a large segment of short-haul aviation routes (Decker et al., 2017). Nu-merous high-population cities have sufficient commercial travel volume to justify the currentlyprojected construction costs of hyperloop. And most of the conceptual city pairs investigatedfor potential hyperloop connections are often located too far to conveniently travel by car andtoo short to efficiently travel by plane when considering the door-to-door travel time (Deckeret al., 2017). As a consequence, Opgenoord and Caplan (2017) argues that a commercializationof hyperloop transportation solutions could generate a opportunity of reducing the pressure ofincreasingly congested airports and flight routes. Further, Decker et al. (2017) concludes thataeronautics market research indicate that this specific travel segment is the most sensitive totechnology improvements and ticket prices.

If hyperloop becomes a reality, the technology will likely compete with both rail and air travel.It is however difficult to predict which of the modes that will be affected the most (Professorin Rail Vehicle Dynamics, 2018). Representative of FS links (2018) identifies the highestpotential for hyperloop in the high-speed passenger travel and air freight cargo markets, wherethe customer is willing to pay for a fast delivery or short travel times. In addition, Researcherin Transport Planing (2018) argues that hyperloop could be a good alternative for longerroutes within EU, such as Stockholm – Berlin, where the speeds achieved by HSR is notsufficient, as well as routs where no railway exists today. This would be a segment that isinteresting for hyperloop depending on its costs. Professor in Rail Vehicle Dynamics (2018)do not believe that hyperloop will outcompete HSR, however he agrees with that places withlimited rail infrastructure today could be interesting in terms of hyperloop. Another examplewhere hyperloop could be competitive is as a permanent connection between Stockholm andHelsinki, which could constitute a more effective alternative than other modes of transportation(Researcher in Transport Planing, 2018).

66

Moreover, Researcher in Transport Planing (2018) elaborates that hyperloop needs to be builtin large scale, such as Stockholm – Berlin or Stockholm – Helsinki, to be a valid alternative tothe existing modes of transportation. Further, places with high population intensity are morelikely to have a higher demand for a solution like hyperloop. These types of routes and regionscould be good for initial hyperloop connections, proving the feasibility of concept (Professor inRail Vehicle Dynamics, 2018). However, Professor in Rail Vehicle Dynamics (2018) is skepticalthat hyperloop will become widely adopted in Europe.

5.3 Travel Trends and Demand

Transport economists usually say that there is no direct demand of transportation, but ratherthat transportation is needed due to other factors such as increasing peoples’ wellbeing, pur-chasing goods or work opportunities, which makes transport demand an indirect demand (Re-searcher in Transport Planing, 2018). This demand derives from imperfections in society,requiring people to travel to achieve something, often due to local services not offering suffi-cient satisfaction. This creates structural need for travel and this need is increasing, which inturn puts pressure on the transport system (Researcher in Transport Planing, 2018). DeputyResearch Director at VTI (2018) identifies that the trend of being connected online (e.g viainternet, Skype) in todays society would possess the potential of making humans travel less,but in fact, it has had the opposite affect.

Another trend that can be observed is urbanization, a trend that likely will continue in thefuture. It could thereof be beneficial for the physical construction and every-day quality ofhousing to utilize a faster transportation mode into city centers, as that has the potential togeographically increase regions (Deputy Research Director at VTI, 2018). Deputy ResearchDirector at VTI (2018) also mention the ability to travel freely as a main driver of competencein the society. Competences have to be able to move physically, but also within and betweencompanies and environments (Deputy Research Director at VTI, 2018). In that line of thought,Member of the parliament (L) (2018) concludes that in a case where the delays in the railwaysystem would be almost eliminated, the demand for that particular mode of transportationwould increase, and hence capacity shortages would still be a critical problem.

Further, Deputy Research Director at VTI (2018) do not believe the demand for cargo andpassenger transport to decrease over time. A more realistic scenario would be that more andmore people need to travel frequently and want to do so with less effort (Deputy ResearchDirector at VTI, 2018). The only way to handle this is to expand the transport system, butto entrust this expansion to car travel, which take huge space and is energy demanding, isnot aligned with the environmental goals and puts significant stress on the physical planningof society (Researcher in Transport Planing, 2018). Consequently, transport planners need toconsider alternative transport solutions and relieve the road network (Researcher in TransportPlaning, 2018).

Historically, two main trends in transport can be identified. Firstly, we have significantlyhigher demands for safety when it comes to traveling today than we have had before. Thisconcerns all modes of transport and Sweden has a vision of zero fatalities in the transportsystem (Researcher in Transport Planing, 2018). The second trend is that the average speedhas seen a constant increase over time. People spend similar quantities of time on travels, butthe distances covered has increased. Both hyperloop and HSR are continuing this trend, as they

67

will reach longer with the same travel time and thereof increase the accessibility (Researcher inTransport Planing, 2018). Moreover, Deputy Research Director at VTI (2018) approximateshumans acceptance for daily travel in urban areas to be around one hour per direction. Further,acknowledging how this limitation in travel time, represented as a geographical circle, woulddrastically increase and significantly change travel patterns within the region if a transportmode of hyperloops performances would be introduced (Deputy Research Director at VTI,2018).

Furthermore, a rapidly increasing trend for the demand of air travel in recent years can beobserved, both for private and professional purposes (Researcher in Transport Planing, 2018).As international collaborations and connections increase with the global society, businessesrequire more air travel. This is costly in terms of the transport system and its effects on theenvironment (Researcher in Transport Planing, 2018). And since this trend is related to thestructure of our society and the industry, it will be very difficult to change. It is possibleto increase the prices to reduce the demand, but it would require a significant price increaseto have noticeable effects and could have negative effects on companies and organizations(Researcher in Transport Planing, 2018).

5.4 Price

Even though hyperloop possess the potential of strong performance in the social and environ-mental criteria, and that it potentially can be a very safe mode of transportation, skepticsunenviable questions whether the realization of hyperloop might end up being more expensivethat its investors projects (Nikitas et al., 2017). As Decker et al. (2017) among others identifies,several parameters influences the cost of constructing the infrastructure of hyperloop and hencethe ticket price, which constitutes for a large part of the refundable financing of the project,becomes challenging to specify and predict. Van Goeverden et al. (2017) identifies the lowcapacity of hyperloop technologies as one of the major weaknesses for keeping the ticket priceslow, as the cost of the infrastructure makes up a significant part of the total costs per seat-km.Further Van Goeverden et al. (2017) concludes break-even fares to potentially be higher thanthose of HSR and APT, even when the load factor is high. Hence, the finding suggest thathyperloop transportations may be limited to only premium passengers, which possesses thewillingness to pay for the strongest feature of superior high average speed (Van Goeverdenet al., 2017). Also, Nikitas et al. (2017) identifies that the smaller vehicles may lead to higherbreak-even fares and hence limiting it to only the premium passenger transport market.

In the Hyperloop Alpha papper (Musk, 2013) makes a direct cost comparison to the Californiahigh-speed rail project connecting Los Angeles to San Fransisco. Based on the costs of 56,1billion Euro for building the project and the cost to operate and maintain it, the ticket pricefor a one-way ride on the rail line would be estimated to 86 Euro. Covering the same distance,a plane ticket, making the travel time one hour shorter, would cost 60 Euro and a drivingby car would cost one third of the train ticket price. (Musk, 2013) estimate, in the caseof the alternative hyperloop solution, cost of infrastructure to be about 50 billion Euro lessthan the high-speed rail, with lower energy costs and less personnel required to operate thesystem. Ultimately, a thirty-five-minute commute between Los Angeles and San Franciscowould be 16 Euro (Krausz and Honold, 2016). One of the companies behind realizing hyperlooptechnologies, Virgin Hyperloop One have recognized that the potential ticket prices to bedifficult to predict, as they will depend greatly on the route. However, Virgin Hyperloop One

68

(2018) publicly announced that their goal is to make it affordable for everyone.

According to Researcher in Transport Planing (2018), the ticket price has a relation to thenumber of passengers, and if the ticket price is high, fewer passengers will choose the travelalternative than if the ticket price is low. Although, the relation is not strict, and there is arange of other factors affecting the choice (Researcher in Transport Planing, 2018). Researcherin Transport Planing (2018) concludes that the business segment to be less sensitive to priceand often offer a better profitability than the low-end segment, as each seat provide morerevenue. Hence, it is often crucial to attract business passengers in order to be profitable inthe market. Many actors try to sell a main part of their tickets in this segment and then fillsup their vessels with low price travelers by discount offers (Researcher in Transport Planing,2018). As business travelers generally have a high value of time, short travel times is oftenmore determining than ticket price, hyperloop could have an advantage to other alternativeswhen attracting this segment of the market (Researcher in Transport Planing, 2018).

5.5 Society

Both the Deputy Research Director at VTI (2018) and the Professor in Transport Economics(2018) acknowledge potential societal benefits as a key determinant for implementation deci-sions of new technology. Sophisticated models for calculating such benefits from transportationsystems exists in Sweden today, valuing factors such as travel time, quality of life, productivityand impact on labor force. However, these models are limited to smaller projects and are illsuited for larger systems (Professor in Transport Economics, 2018). Furthermore, there is arisk of current models having outdated and bias valuation of the different factors, giving faultypredictions of future demand and payback time of investments (Deputy Research Director atVTI, 2018).

Representative of FS links (2018) argue that the current models do not cover the widersocio-economic benefits achieved by hyperloops performance. For example, Representativeof Ramboll (2018) identifies several domestic, but also cross-border, benefits with a hyperloopsystem. This could further enable Universities to share expensive and unique lab equipment,the accessibility of hospitals (including expensive and rare equipment and competence) couldbe increased and hence utilized more efficiently. And housing outside of urban areas could be-come more attractive (Representative of Ramboll, 2018). Altogether, this makes it challengingto conceptualize the impact of a hyperloop system in an appropriate way, and hence the resis-tance for the technology remains high (Representative of FS links, 2018). He draws parallels tothe Oresundsbron project, where the traveling increased by a factor of 6 in a case where only1 hour of time was saved (Representative of FS links, 2018). Hyperloop would cut the traveltime between Stockholm and Helsinki from 4 hours to 28 minutes, significantly altering theaccessibility between the two capitals. The socio-economic benefits from such change requiresa new type of sophisticated analysis (Representative of FS links, 2018).

Another concern in this regard is how a hyperloop system should be defined and consequentlywhat models that are applicable to the case studied (Professor in Transport Economics, 2018).Deputy Research Director at VTI (2018) further recognize cross-border infra structure projectsto be especially challenging in terms of calculating societal benefits. And according to Rep-resentative of Ramboll (2018) there is a lack for models that includes cross-border effects andin general models for country-wide social impact. Further, there are no common models to

69

evaluate infrastructure projects across borders in the Nordic region Representative of Ramboll(2018).

When considering large infrastructure projects time is a factor to consider. These projectstake a long time to complete and is performed in a long-term perspective. To take the risk ofinvesting in such a project, sustainable benefits need to be perceptible in a period of 60-100years (Researcher in Transport Planing, 2018). However, predicting how society will look in ahundred years is very difficult. The society could potentially change significantly in that periodand it is consequently hard to determine the future necessity of the investment. Hence, thelong-term planning is both a strength, as it could motivate pushing through an investment, butalso a weakness as it is impossible to guarantee the future benefits (Researcher in TransportPlaning, 2018).

5.5.1 Economic Impact as Innovation Leader

In the report by Arup et al. (2017), a potential test track for hyperloop is argued to be justifiedby the strategic knowledge and innovation-position of the Netherlands as leaders in innovativemobility concepts. This could also bring potential first-mover advantages if the hyperlooptechnology is proven to be ready for commercial adoption (Arup et al., 2017). Adopting thisinnovative transportation mode in Netherlands would attract foreign investments and R&Dfacilities, thus contribute to a competitive knowledge position of Dutch businesses. And atthe same time, by combining several hyperloop development companies to one site at thesame location, most likely would positively contribute to the Dutch innovation and productionecosystem (Arup et al., 2017). Beyond the scope of innovation and R&D, a potential construc-tion of a commercial hyperloop trajectory in the Netherlands could have economic impactby generating a short-term production impulse, influencing local construction and engineeringlabor as the production of pods, hyperloop elements and secondly connecting infrastructuresuch as parking, retail, catering etc. takes place (Arup et al., 2017).

5.6 High-Speed Rail

As the hyperloop concept entails a potential new mode of ground transportation, its closestcompetition can arguably be considered railway and in particular High-Speed Rail (HSR).Although the predicted high speed of the hyperloop concept could make it competitive inrespect to aviation, a further investigation of the aviation industry and its performances hasbeen left out of the study. Instead, the Swedish transportation perspective of this thesis,where the HSR discussions dominate the political decisions in infrastructure planning justifiesthe study to be focused on HSR, and hence briefly describe how hyperloop can be set in relationto the HSR technology.

According to the European Union’s definition High-Speed Rail (HSR) is defined as rail infras-tructure specifically designed to support speeds equal to, or greater than 250 km/h, whileenabling speeds over 300km/h under appropriate circumstances. Furthermore, specially up-graded existing lines supporting speeds in the order of 200km/h can be sorted into this category(Council Directive, 1996). Incremental and continuous development during the years has cre-ated several technical solutions for HSR transportation. Some examples of these are HSR, butalso Magnetic levitation (Maglev) and the most recent Superconducting Magnetic levitation

70

(SCMaglev).

The Maglev rail system is levitated on ferromagnetic guideways, which offer speeds around 400-500km/h and was introduced as a more environmental friendly, but still profitable mode oftransportation (Gonzalez-Gonzalez and Nogues, 2017). Maglev is presumed to have substantialadvantages over conventional HSR such as lower emissions, higher security, shorter travel timestogether with higher frequency, capacity and reliability. These improvements are howeverarguably marginal, especially with respect to the cost. HSR, which has been heavily critiquedfor its high costs, have an average cost of 18 million euro per kilometer. In contrast, the Maglevroute in Shanghai cost approximately 33 million euro per kilometer (Gonzalez-Gonzalez andNogues, 2017), and Van Goeverden et al. (2017) estimates a cost per kilometer of 25 millioneuro for Maglev track to be possible under favorable conditions.

Furthermore, Japan is developing the new dynamic superconducting system, the SCMaglev,which is currently under construction between Tokyo and Nagoya. The inauguration of theplanned route expected to 2027. However, the technology has already proven its performancesthrough various tests with two world records: 581km/h in 2003 and later 603km/h in 2015(Gonzalez-Gonzalez and Nogues, 2017). However, the price tag for the next generation ofMaglev technology is expected to a massive 125 million euro per kilometer. These high coststogether with higher noise and vibration, as well as incompatibility with existing infrastructure,has hindered the expansion of Maglev worldwide (Gonzalez-Gonzalez and Nogues, 2017). Asexplained by Palacin (2016), while Maglev is technically feasible, with increased performancein relation to HSR, the high initial and operational cost questions the commercial viabilityof the technology. This aspect will constitute an important determiner that has to be set inrelation to the hyperloop technology.

However, as Maglev and SCMaglev routs are still very rare, it is common to refer to all thesetransport solutions as HSR (Gonzalez-Gonzalez and Nogues, 2017). As neither Maglev norSCMaglev is relevant when it comes to transport planning in Sweden, the HSR concept willfurther be referred to include all three technologies in this thesis.

Today, HSR is the most developed railway system with 29,000km lines in service 2016, carrying1.6 billion passengers annually and with another 15,000km rail under construction. Moreover,modern HSR tracks commonly reach speeds of 300km/h and it is estimated that this can beincreased to 320-360km/h in the future. However, balancing the trade-off between maximumcapacity, required safety and energy usage is one of the biggest dilemmas for future rail travel(Palacin, 2016).

As HSR has very high construction and maintenance costs, the economic viability of thetechnology is under debate in both the academic and political community (Gonzalez-Gonzalezand Nogues, 2017). When looking into what effects the emergence of HSR has had on theflight industry it can be concluded that airlines in Italy, Spain and China has been forced tolower their prices (Sun et al., 2017). Furthermore, studies show that the short-haul demandfor air transport has declined after entry of high-speed railways (Sun et al., 2017; Timmons,2014).

From a Swedish perspective however, Researcher in Transport Planing (2018) defines HSR asnew railways with a standard that allows speeds up to 300-400kmh with today’s technology.The benefit of HSR is that it is compatible with existing infrastructure and existing technical

71

standards and hence parts of the existing network can be used, which will reduce the cost inSweden. Furthermore, Researcher in Transport Planing (2018) argues that the existing systemwill benefit from having additional links, as it would make the network less vulnerable andbetter equipped for current and future demand. In comparison with old rail infrastructure,HSR builds on a modern standard adapted for the demand of today and not an old standardwith flaws in technology and planning (Researcher in Transport Planing, 2018).

Researcher in Transport Planing (2018) argues that HSR is currently the fastest travel alter-native on the market in the range of 300-800km, making the technology competitive. By thisreasoning, Researcher in Transport Planing (2018) proclaims that most travelers will chooseHSR in this interval. In addition, the ticket prices are expected to be relatively cheap, as it isless expensive to drive trains fast. This since the personal and capital expenditures increasewith travel time, and this increase is more significant than the reduced energy consumptionand maintenance associated with lower speeds (Researcher in Transport Planing, 2018).

Although there already are a network of railways in Sweden the most significant barrier forexpanding HSR in Sweden is financing. The expansion is expensive and needs to be motivatedby large streams of travelers and will be hard to recoup financially. Hence, all actors needsto be convinced and agree that the investment is necessary (Researcher in Transport Planing,2018). Financing an HSR project will consequently be a significantly impediment endeavor.In addition to this, environmental concerns such as intrusion and noise pollution is obstaclesto overcome. However, the noise from HSR will be kept within the regulated boundary levels,which is generally accepted and will thereof unlikely hinder the expansion (Researcher inTransport Planing, 2018). The intrusion aspect on the other hand could be harder to overcome,as expanding HSR requires new land to be exploited, including both urban and natural areas.However, Researcher in Transport Planing (2018) considers this to be solvable and likely to beaccepted by the public.

72

Chapter Summary

In this chapter empirical data provided by literature and interviews emphasized several criti-cal aspect revolving hyperloop’s potential acceptance on the market. Factors such as the veryfuturistic perception of the hyperloop concept and that the railway system already is in place,likely pose as large barriers for acceptance. Moreover, the market segmentation indicates hy-perloop to be competitive to both rail and air travel. Increased urbanization and the trend anddemand to travel frequently and with less effort, motivates a system such as hyperloop on thetransport market. Further, as the ticket price will affect to the number of passengers hyper-loop will attract, it will remain an important determiner for the diffusion of hyperloop. Forthe society however, the empirical data indicates that there currently are no sufficient modelsto cover the wider socio-economic benefits achieved by hyperloops performances, which is animportant aspect when it comes to large infrastructure projects. Lastly, the European Union’sdefinition of High-Speed Rail (HSR) is defined as rail infrastructure designed to support speedsequal to, or greater than 250 km/h. This complemented by a description of the more progressedincremental improvements of the HSR technology, namely Maglev and SCMaglev which offersspeeds up to 600 km/h but is still struggling to reach full diffusion due to high constructioncosts.

73

6 The Swedish Perspective

In order to comprehend the Swedish perspective on the hyperloop concept and how it couldpossibly emerge as a viable transport alternative on the Swedish market, empirical data pro-vided by the interviews have identified a number of denominators related to this. Firstly, theGovernment and Authorities in the Swedish transport market is mapped out and set in re-lation to the hyperloop concepts. This is followed by a more specific section on the SwedishTransport Market investigating the market acceptance, travel trends and demand of the Swedishmarket. Subsequently, hyperloop is set in relation to the Swedish Society where aspects suchas Economic impact as Innovation Leader and Research in Sweden is presented. Lastly, thehyperloop movement in Sweden is introduced, where the companies involved with the hyperloopconcept in Sweden is presented, complemented by empirical interview data on the aspects ofHow to Introduce Hyperloop In Sweden, Regulations, Financing Hyperloop. And finally theproposal of the National Negotiation on Housing and Infrastructure (Sverigeforhandlingen),which has been heavily debated in Sweden, is described.

6.1 Government and Authorities

In Sweden, the main part of transport and infrastructure is controlled and regulated by thegovernment and its authorities. Hence this aspect is crucial in the context of hyperloop inSweden. As the government determine the mandate and broad description of the authorities’activities, and further governs most larger infrastructure projects, this is where the investi-gation needs to start. Subsequently, the national authorities within transportation will beconsidered. There are several different authorities within this segment. To understand thedifferent responsibilities and the relation between the different agencies, three of them: theSwedish Transport Administration, the Swedish Transport Authority and Transport Analysiswill be obtainable in this section. In addition to these authorities, the LFV Group - SwedishAirports and Air Navigation Services and the Swedish Maritime Administration, is responsiblefor air and sea transport respectively. They have however been left out of this paper due tolimited relevance to the study.

Introducing a new mode of transportation in Sweden has both political and social chal-lenges. On the political level, significant challenges such as time-consuming discussions onsocio-economic benefits and necessity of investment is likely to prolong decisions surroundinghyperloop. Clear parallels can be identified to the HSR discussions that has been present inSwedish politics the recent years (Professor in Rail Vehicle Dynamics, 2018). To introduce anew infrastructure in Sweden, a working legislation and planning system for how to integratethe system in society is necessary. These two are often interconnected and quite substantial,the legislation needs to regulate all from safety and passenger rights to implementation andhow to physically introduce this in the governmental systems (Researcher in Transport Planing,2018). Further, institutions and authorities taking care of the legislations and regulating thenew infrastructure as well as education on how to handle the system is required. Commonly,high technology systems benefit from environments with a high degree of education, as thisincrease the pool of potential people that can work with the projects (Researcher in TransportPlaning, 2018).

Representative of Ramboll (2018) identifies the emerging trend of new technology and howthis generates a technical transition in the society. He argues that this trend of disruptive

74

technologies needs to be observed by politicians and considered in the decision-making process.Even if the aim is to incrementally improve the HSR network, the emerging technologies, suchas hyperloop, needs to be acknowledged on a political level (Representative of Ramboll, 2018).This view is further supported by Deputy Research Director at VTI (2018) whom states that,while the Swedish authorities are evaluating whether to invest in the infrastructure, theirapproach of evaluating and investing in mainly old, conventional technology is insufficient fora future sustainable society.

Moreover, Lawyers of Setterwalls (2018) argues that today’s fast-moving society together withthe four year terms in government makes it hard to initiate large projects without enteringin an election period. And there is also a general positive attitude amongst the government,authorities and municipals related to rail transport. However, the fact that it is an election thisyear prohibits everything. The politicians just want to finalize the already initiated projects,and from June there will likely be no new projects being started before the election (Lawyersof Setterwalls, 2018). Another potential pitfall by this is that the ones pushing the projectforward politically, whom poses most knowledge, risk getting laid of after the election (Lawyersof Setterwalls, 2018). This was the case for hyperloop in Finland.

6.1.1 The Swedish Government

Member of the parliament (L) (2018) concludes that the interest for hyperloop amongst Swedishpoliticians today is very low. Instead, the debate is almost exclusively restricted to the discus-sion and investigation of HSR solutions. Member of the parliament (L) (2018) argues that themain reason for this is historical, heavy investments has been made in the rail infrastructure,creating lock-in effects which are hard to overcome for emerging technologies. This view issupported by Member of the Swedish Parliament (M) (2018), whom identifies that several ofthe actors responsible for the development of the transportation infrastructure in Sweden tendto be biased for specific solutions, and hence more radical, alternative, solutions often riskbeing rejected due to inadequate decisions. This could for instance be arguments rejectinga technology based on it being developed by futuristic and arguably foolish entrepreneurs,making the projects appear unserious or non-feasible (Member of the Swedish Parliament (M),2018).

Beyond this, Member of the parliament (L) (2018) identifies the political risk involved inexperimentation with new technologies as a dominant political barrier for hyperloop. Investingin a new technology, and particularly in the early stages of development, entails significantpolitical risks. In that context, it would be very beneficial if the development in for exampleDubai progresses rapidly (Member of the Swedish Parliament (M), 2018). If the technology isproven feasible somewhere in the world, it would become more justified to arguably replace theconventional HSR, meanwhile the political risk would be reduced drastically (Member of theSwedish Parliament (M), 2018). And if this happens the government will most likely becomea crucial part in building and integrating the system into the Swedish society (Member of theparliament (L), 2018).

On a political level, it is often more attractive to take lower risks with the compromise oflower returns, rather than pursuing projects with higher risks and potentially higher rewards(Member of the parliament (L), 2018). Project failures attract a lot of attention and is heavilycriticized, especially if the project concerns large technical systems that might take several

75

years to initiate, as the project then risk becoming outdated or uncompetitive once it is finished(Member of the parliament (L), 2018). In that line of thought, authorities need to have cleardirections from the government to promote the awareness of a new radical technology, andthese directions are not sufficient today (Member of the Swedish Parliament (M), 2018). Anexample of such directions could be to order feasibility studies and investigations on potentialfuture routes with hyperloop (Member of the Swedish Parliament (M), 2018).

However, if no one dares to take the first step and is ready to risk their position in parliamentor their role as minister, the Sweden will never be included in the hyperloop race. They mustbe willing to bet the first 5 billion euros and be prepared to take the blame if it does notwork in order to set Sweden on the track towards a new era in time. The political situation inSweden is paralyzing the discussion, no one dares to be the one taking the initiative and saythat we should build hyperloop, that they believe in the technology (Lawyers of Setterwalls,2018). In that line of thought, Lawyers of Setterwalls (2018) proclaims that both politicalinitiatives and initiatives from the industry is needed.

The government plays an important role by promoting innovative solutions in society, as well ashave a responsibility to, in extension of a more covering external funding, support enthusiaststo some extent (Member of the parliament (L), 2018). The main idea, according to Memberof the parliament (L) (2018) is not the amount of financial resources provided, but rather thesignal such an initiative can provoke. If neither the government nor the Swedish transportationauthorities are interested in alternative solutions, the possibility for these technologies reachingdiffusion becomes significantly limited (Member of the Swedish Parliament (M), 2018). Eventhough hyperloop is in an early development stage, Member of the parliament (L) (2018)argues that it is important, and sometimes enough, for the government to communicate ageneral interest of the technology, reflecting that there could be potential acceptance fromtheir side, to get things moving in the industry.

Member of the Swedish Parliament (M) (2018) took the initiative to arrange a hyperloopseminar in the Swedish parliament in 2016. She concludes that even though there is a vastnumber of seminars in parliament, the hyperloop seminar was full and the interest was great.Further, as 2018 is an election year, some of the members of parliament will be replaced.And hence, it would be a good time to arrange a new seminar later this year (Member of theSwedish Parliament (M), 2018). Although this seminar regarding hyperloop has been heldwith members of the Swedish government, Representative of Ramboll (2018) stresses that ishas been challenging to create a common forum where politicians discuss, bring awarenessand make smart decisions regarding the topic. Representative of Ramboll (2018) would liketo see increased cooperation and initiatives, as politicians need to become more responsivein the matter. Member of the Swedish Parliament (M) (2018) argue that more seminars, orother informative activities, are required to enhance the awareness of hyperloop amongst theSwedish government.

Regarding how to provoke political interest for hyperloop, Member of the parliament (L) (2018)mentions that there are political conferences where this type of topics is discussed, which couldbe a good alternative. Other channels in the political arena could be through media and thecamber, as it could bring up the subject on the agenda. However, the opportunities for adiscussion would most likely still be limited there (Member of the parliament (L), 2018).Member of the Swedish Parliament (M) (2018) agrees with the potential of using media as a

76

channel to direct more attention to the technology. The articles could either be written byjournalists or persons within the government. In the latter case, the question regarding whowill take the responsibility as the author needs to be addressed. Should it be a representativefrom the transportation sector or someone else promoting the concept, as it can be consideredvery futuristic and comes with a lot of uncertainties (Member of the Swedish Parliament (M),2018).

6.1.2 The Swedish Transport Administration (Trafikverket)

The Swedish Transport Administration (ST-Administration), is the government agency re-sponsible for the long-term planning of transport systems in Sweden. Their task is to developsustainable and efficient transport systems, encircling all modes of transportation (Trafikver-ket, 2018a). Further, ST-Administration is responsible for building, maintaining and operat-ing the rail and road infrastructure, as well as ensuring effectively used, safe and sustainabletransportation. ST-Administration plans for the future, and as accessibility is becoming in-creasingly important, transportation plays a key role in the development of society. Hence,ST-Administration aim for complete integration of the whole transport system. When plan-ning, ST-Administration have a close dialogue with regions and municipalities with the ob-jective of creating a safe and accessible system with consideration of health and environment(Trafikverket, 2018a). Based on their assignment, the overall vision for the long-term directionof ST-Administration is formulated as (Trafikverket, 2018a):

”Everybody arrives smoothly, the green and safe way”

This vision serves as a guidance for the agency’s planning and operational activities. Andwith it, ST-Administration strives to create a safe, efficient and reliable transport system(Trafikverket, 2018a).

ST-Administration has approximately 6,800 employees distributed over several different busi-ness areas and central functions, with a head courter located in Borlange, Sweden. In 2016,the total agency budget was 54 billion SEK, of which 45 consisted of appropriations. Some ofST-Administration’s activities are financed directly from fees and commissioned work. And inaddition, large investments in rail and road infrastructure can be financed through loans andsubsidies (Trafikverket, 2018a).

As ST-Administration is an authority, they are required by law to procure all goods, servicesand contracts in competition. The regulatory standards that must be followed is the PublicProcurement Act (LOU) and the Act on Procurement in the Water, Energy, Transport andPostal Services Sectors (LUF), which are both based on directives from the European Union(Trafikverket, 2018b). The fundamental characteristics of these regulations is that all suppliersmust be treated equal and that all procurements need to be executed openly.

The process performed by the ST-Administration when procuring a good, service or contractbegins with the emerge of a need within ST-Administration for that particular product. Thisneed is then defined through enquiry documentation describing what is to be delivered, therequirements of that product, together with the parameters of which the tenders will be eval-uated (Trafikverket, 2018b). When this documentation is created, the procurement is publicly

77

advertised on a database and on ST-Administration’s website. However, there are two excep-tions, if the procurement is of low value, ST-Administration do not need to advertise it, suchprocurements is known as direct procurements. The second exception is for procurements overa threshold value, then ST-Administration can use a prequalification system in accordancewith the Public Procurement Act (LOU), and the procurement does not need to be adver-tised (Trafikverket, 2018b). Thereafter, the suppliers send in their tenders, which is evaluatedaccording to the criteria specified in the enquiry documentation. From this evaluation, theST-Administration notice the suppliers which of the tenders that has been awarded with thecontract (Trafikverket, 2018b).

In Sweden, the ST-Administration is responsible for maintaining the current infrastructure,however they lack capabilities to deal with new technologies that could challenge the traditionalway of working. There is no appropriate institutional channel to follow up on innovations ininfrastructure projects (Representative of FS links, 2018). Representative of FS links (2018)further stress the importance of creating such a mechanism, where the Ministry of Industrycould have an important role. Large scale projects, such as hyperloop, should be consideredas a process where there are no individual factors that are harder to overcome than others.

There is currently no one at ST-Administration that, in their role description, has the re-sponsibility to look at or investigate hyperloop. This is not uncommon when it comes tonew technologies, it takes time for such organizations to assign official positions to look into new concepts (Representative of Hyperloop Sweden, 2018). There are however people atST-Administration whom keeps track of the technical development around the world, and theyhave a substantial budget for research (Senior Adviser at ST-Administration, 2018). AlthoughSenior Adviser at ST-Administration (2018) argue that they lack models and resources fornew technologies such as hyperloop and the innovational drive is generally weak in public ad-ministrations. As an example, Senior Adviser at ST-Administration (2018) explains that thedevelopment within car technology has progressed rapidly during the last decades, while theroads, which are governed by ST-Administration, has remained more or less unchanged. Thisis a direct consequence of their lack of innovational power and the lack of competition, the or-ganizational support for innovation has been neglected (Senior Adviser at ST-Administration,2018).

The interest from the ST-Administration for hyperloop as a potential transportation solutionhas progressed, although the development is slow (Representative of FS links, 2018). A reasonfor this, as perceived by Representative of FS links (2018), is that ST-Administration havebeen skeptical about abandoning the HSR discussion, they have seen hyperloop as a directcompeting alternative to HSR rather than as a complementary solution. ST-Administrationhas however started to realize that the question is not whether to build HSR or hyperloop,but rather that HSR could potentially be complemented by hyperloop for high-speed transportpurposes (Representative of FS links, 2018).

6.1.3 The Swedish Transport Agency (Transportstyrelsen)

The Swedish Transport Agency (ST-Agency) is a state authority under the government, belong-ing to the Ministry of Enterprise and Innovation (Transportstyrelsen, 2018b). The authorityis responsible for providing rules and regulations for transport within Sweden. Further, theagency is accountable for ensuring that these regulations are followed by the public, authori-

78

ties as well as companies and organizations (Transportstyrelsen, 2018a). They strive to achievehigh quality, accessible, secure and environmentally sustainable transport in air, ground andsea transport. The ST-Agency partake in the development of existing transport systems, witha special emphasis on environment, safety and health. They derive regulations, and ensuresthat they are abided, with respect to consequences for both the public and the industry. More-over, The ST-Agency provides the society with information on means of transport and drives,working for a holistic view and efficiency (Transportstyrelsen, 2018b).

The authority is divided into five departments, each with separate specific responsibilities. TheDriving License department handles the licensing area by examining and authorizing licenses.The Civil Aviation and Maritime Department articulates regulations, examines and grantspermits, and assess aviation and maritime. Further, the department monitor the developmentand work to improve these fields (Transportstyrelsen, 2018a). The Road and Rail Departmentis responsible for regulations, permits and supervision of the field of road and rail transport.Additionally, they analyze and supply information about road traffic and strives to achievea high level of security and efficiency in these segments. Finally, The Vehicle RegistrationDepartment handles and creates transport records and vehicle control (Transportstyrelsen,2018a).

The ST-Agency was contacted by one of the hyperloop companies in early 2017, whom ex-pressed a request to delineate how the process for approving hyperloop in Sweden could beconducted (Head of Technology and Railway at ST-Agency, 2018). When the request wasreceived at the agency, a council was created, consisting of representatives from all four of thecurrent transport modes; shipping, aviation, road traffic and railway. The council set out toanalyze the technology and determine if it could fit in to the description of any of the currenttransportation alternatives or if a completely new unit would be required (Head of Technologyand Railway at ST-Agency, 2018). This aspect is crucial since the Swedish Transport Agency,as a governmental authority, must have legal support and mandate to be allowed to pursue aproject (Head of Technology and Railway at ST-Agency, 2018). They concluded that the mostsuitable section of the agency for hyperloop was the railway department, and more specificallythe tramway regulation.

However, as the tramway regulation is limited to only local passenger transportation, whichunlikely will be the case for a hyperloop system, the fit was not substantial enough (Head ofTechnology and Railway at ST-Agency, 2018). Consequently, the Swedish Transport Agencyconcluded that they did not have the mandate to pursue the case further. And sent anapplication for extended mandate to the Ministry of Enterprise and Innovation to enablecontinuing the investigative process for an approval of hyperloop (Head of Technology andRailway at ST-Agency, 2018). Hence, this is one of the short-term challenges for hyperloopin Sweden, as the organizational structure of the Swedish Transport Agency currently lacksmandate to evaluate the approval of a hyperloop system Head of Technology and Railway atST-Agency (2018).

And since there is no other authority in Sweden with the ability to evaluate new transportmodes, the limiting definition of their mandate is insufficient for covering the necessary aspectsof disruptive systems such as hyperloop. A view which is further supported by the responsereceived from Ministry of Enterprise and Innovation, stating that if the mandate should berewritten, it should be rewritten as broadly as possible to avoid similar problems in the future

79

(Head of Technology and Railway at ST-Agency, 2018). The time required for rewriting sucha mandate could vary largely, and highly depends on how urgent and prioritized it is for theMinistry of Enterprise and Innovation. However, to reopen the process of approving hyperloopas a mode of transportation in Sweden, new mandate is required (Head of Technology andRailway at ST-Agency, 2018). If the Swedish Transport Agency gets the expanded mandateto evaluate hyperloop, Head of Technology and Railway at ST-Agency (2018) estimates that,under relatively good circumstances, the approval process would take from a few monthsto a couple of years, depending on whether there is experience from installations in othercountries or not, and on the current workload of the organization. In such a process, a tightlycoupled collaboration and continuous dialogue with those who applied for is preferable (Headof Technology and Railway at ST-Agency, 2018).

Head of Technology and Railway at ST-Agency (2018) mentions that there are certain char-acteristics separating the different types of transport, and that it, according to the law, is theresponsibility of the Swedish Transport Agency to determine whether something belongs toeither one of them. The largest differentiators are passenger transportation and local passengertransportation, although the separation can at times be inexplicit (Head of Technology andRailway at ST-Agency, 2018). As an example of a process involving a new transportationsolution, Head of Technology and Railway at ST-Agency (2018) mentions the extensive workbeing done on autonomous cars. This is a growing area where several employees currently aredeveloping methods for determining what can be considered safe for traffic and how to approvethem. For this particular case, it is clear that autonomous cars belong to road vehicles andthat the corresponding legislation should be applied in the process (Head of Technology andRailway at ST-Agency, 2018).

Regarding the approval of safety issues connected to hyperloop and how this can be challengingto define with respect to regulations of railway and the aviation industry, Head of Technologyand Railway at ST-Agency (2018) argues STAs experiences and organizational structure ofbeing involved in both industries to be an advantage. As synergies and cooperation betweenregulations and processes of the two modes can be utilized for processes in the hyperloopcase (Head of Technology and Railway at ST-Agency, 2018). As a government organization,the Swedish Transport Agency makes no difference in how they relate to private or publicorganizations. Head of Technology and Railway at ST-Agency (2018) brings up that there areplenty of private railway companies provided with approvals by the Swedish Transport Agency.

However, from Lawyers of Setterwalls (2018) experience of working with hyperloop relatedprojects in Sweden, they criticize the Swedish Transport Agency for being skeptical to hyper-loop concept and identfies that its in the discussions with them where resistance and some ofthe most prominent antagonist to the project have been met. They are a government authoritywhom does not really have mandate to look in to the technology, so they do not dare to lookin to the technology unless it gets approved from above (Lawyers of Setterwalls, 2018). Thiscould be a reason for the resistance as they are not permitted to do what they want.

6.1.4 Trafikanalys - Transport Analysis

The role of Transport Analysis is to provide decision-makers with relevant and policy advise.The objective of the agency is economic efficiency and sustainable delivery of transport ser-vices for businesses and people in Sweden. And they, at request from the government, partake

80

in transport policy development through analyzing, reviewing, evaluating and following upproposed and implemented procedures (Trafikanalys, 2018a). The Transport Analysis wasestablished in 2010 with the purpose of distributing experiences, knowledge and results ofactivities between different stakeholders. They evaluate future prospects and business envi-ronments within transport policy, with a special weight on development of transport in thecontext of EU. In addition, the agency is responsible for the production of official statistics oncommunication and transport sectors, such as flow and travel surveys (Trafikanalys, 2018a).

The agency is based in Stockholm, Sweden, and consists of three departments, Policy Analysis,Evaluation and Statistics and Operational support. The work of the Transport Analysis issupervised by a scientific council, with the purpose of assuring the quality of the produced andapplied methods, and to contribute the development of these (Trafikanalys, 2018b).

Transport Analysis have not yet made any analysis on the hyperloop subject (Senior Adviserat Transport Analysis, 2018). As a government authority they are focused on the impactassessments and evaluations of transport policy initiatives and actions. So far, no proposalshave been made about hyperloop and Senior Adviser at Transport Analysis (2018) states thatthey have not had any other reason to further investigate the issue.

In a future scenario of evaluating hyperloop, Senior Adviser at Transport Analysis (2018)argues this process to include taking into account a number of factors, such as regulations,security and costs. Moreover, his personal guess is that it would also, like all new technology,cause vigilance on accountability issues, such as if the current regulatory framework providesadequate framework for monitoring security issues and whether it is socio-economically jus-tifiable, given the benefits and risks in all its aspects (Senior Adviser at Transport Analysis,2018).

6.2 The Swedish Transport Market

When observing the entire transport network in Sweden, there is a need to expand the capacity.The utilization of the roads could be increased, with the exception of areas in and surroundingthe larger cities (Professor in Rail Vehicle Dynamics, 2018). Further, it could be possible toexpand the capacity on sea. Regarding rail however, the system capacity is more or less fullyutilized today, and it will be necessary to expand this capacity in the future (Professor in RailVehicle Dynamics, 2018). Member of the Swedish Parliament (M) (2018) agrees that the futuredemand could be met, in the short perspective, by incremental improvements in the currentinfrastructure. Although recognizing that such initiatives most likely will be insufficient inlonger terms, thus an opportunity to investigate new alternatives could be justified or ratherrequired (Member of the Swedish Parliament (M), 2018).

Regarding the challenges within transport planning in Sweden, Researcher in Transport Plan-ing (2018) emphasize the importance of having a transport system that is demanded by themarket and at the same time meets the governmental goals of availability and environmentalsustainability. In other words, how easy it is to travel between different locations and the en-vironmental footprint originating from the transport (Researcher in Transport Planing, 2018).Fossil fuel independence is a target for Sweden today, however the consequences from thischange on the transport system and our everyday travel patterns is hard to predict. Fossilfuels are relatively cheap and needs to be phased out and replaced with other, greener, al-

81

ternatives (Researcher in Transport Planing, 2018). This being said, Member of the SwedishParliament (M) (2018) is convinced that the foundation in the transition of transportationshould be focused towards finding new, more environmental and efficient solutions, which issomething that the humanity historically has been good at (Member of the Swedish Parliament(M), 2018).

The highway network in Sweden has been developed during a long period of time and today, asubstantial part of the short to medium travels are made by cars. On longer distances air travelbecomes important due to its superior speed (Researcher in Transport Planing, 2018). Memberof the parliament (L) (2018) identifies that Sweden mainly have two modes for mass trans-portation, namely railway and aviation, which both are struggling. Disturbances and delaysin the daily operations of railways are becoming challenging, meanwhile incremental improve-ments or building new railway infrastructure is very expensive (Member of the parliament (L),2018).

One concern of today’s transportation network in Sweden is that there has been a lack oflarger investments since the mid 50’s (Deputy Research Director at VTI, 2018). And the largerinvestments have almost exclusively been sunken in to existing infrastructure systems, hence alot of money is bound to the existing transportation systems. This create barrier effects, makingit hard for the government to adopt a new technology (Professor in Rail Vehicle Dynamics,2018). It is possible to invest in new systems such as HSR or hyperloop, however it would bedifficult and extremely expensive to create a covering network. Air travel has the advantageof only requiring airports, and we already have a network of airports in Sweden. Although itis necessary to restrict the emissions from air travel to save the environment (Researcher inTransport Planing, 2018).

If hyperloop were to be built in Sweden, the main consequence would be a more geographicallyconnected country. By utilizing the higher speeds, it would make the country more cohesiveas the capability of mobility, and in particular the traveling between larger cities, would besignificantly improved (Member of the Swedish Parliament (M), 2018). And this is somethingthat could be further extended beyond the limits of the Swedish borders and hence createenhanced exchange with, for example, the other nations in the Nordic region (Member of theSwedish Parliament (M), 2018).

6.2.1 Market Acceptance

Representative of Ramboll (2018) is convinced that there is a demand for a hyperloop systemin Sweden. This is motivated a bit different by the fact that Sweden, in terms of population,is a very small country where the population is located to a few larger cities and thus, severalsources of knowledge and expertise risks being isolated due to geographical restrictions thathyperloop potentially could solve (Representative of Ramboll, 2018). This is strengthened byMember of the parliament (L) (2018) who argues that if the hyperloop development progressesand becomes economically viable, it possesses the capability to enhance the infrastructurenetwork of Sweden in such a way that regions could be connected in a superior way comparedto today (Member of the parliament (L), 2018).

To become an alternative on the Swedish market however, a wide range of aspects needsto be fulfilled. From insurance, permits and funding to maturity and susceptibility of the

82

individuals whom are to travel with hyperloop. Concludingly, there are a wide range of factorsthat still needs to be solved before hyperloop could reach commercial practice (Representativeof Hyperloop Sweden, 2018). The process of solving these pieces will however be significantlyeased if a fully functioning system is in place somewhere in the world. Once such a facility isin place and the press can come and watch and test ride a passenger pod, this will significantlyimprove the acceptance from the public (Representative of Hyperloop Sweden, 2018). Thisis reflected in how an appropriate marketing differs depending on different countries. In theUS, marketing something in a futuristic and hyped manner works, while people in the Nordiccountries generally have a more withdrawn and skeptical approach. They want to feel, try andsee that it actually works to be convinced. A fictional marketing video might look nice, howeverit is not sufficient to persuade Swedish politicians that it is something to invest in. This isan aspect where Lawyers of Setterwalls (2018) argue that the hyperloop companies could havedone different, adapting the marketing efforts after the Swedish culture and realizing how toattract the interest from Swedish politicians more efficiently.

Another identified barrier in terms of acceptance for hyperloop is the complexity for peopleto comprehend what hyperloop would entail for them, would it change the way they travel,where they choose to live and so forth. The answers to these types of questions are hard topredict (Lawyers of Setterwalls, 2018). To realize that it can become a reality and comprehendthe great benefits of the concept takes time (Lawyers of Setterwalls, 2018). Here, Lawyers ofSetterwalls (2018) have identified a resisstance, and the hyperloop companies have not beenable to realize how hard it is to penetrate the minds of Swedish politicians.

When it comes to realize hyperloop this involves risk taking in both a societal and humancentricperspective which is not fully mastered. It was the same thing when airplanes and cars wereintroduced, no one dared to travel except from a few daredevils (Lawyers of Setterwalls, 2018).Taking something from an exciting idea to making people understand that it actually couldwork require substantial funding. And funding is a matter of risk, something that Swedencurrently is unwilling to take on (Lawyers of Setterwalls, 2018).

In the context of Sweden and regarding the acceptance of new disruptive technologies, such ashyperloop, Member of the Swedish Parliament (M) (2018) argues there is some kind of fear orrestrictiveness amongst the Swedish population. But in general, the Swedish people are goodat adopting new technologies once they are in place on the market (Member of the SwedishParliament (M), 2018). Representative of Ramboll (2018) agrees with this observation andis convinced that the citizens of Sweden have a relatively open mindset in adopting to newtechnologies and once the social norms (e.g safety, fire, evacuation, collisions etc.) of thesystem is accepted. When these criteria are met, hyperloop will gain sufficient acceptance fortravel. The aspect that Sweden is relatively open for new solutions will likely ease the processtowards social acceptance for ideas like hyperloop in contrast to other countries (Professor inRail Vehicle Dynamics, 2018). However, safety is valued high in the Swedish society, henceproving sufficient safety will be a requisite for social acceptance of the technology (Professorin Rail Vehicle Dynamics, 2018).

As the Sweden authorities discuss if they can afford to invest in HSR or need to find alternativefinancing measures, persuading them to invest in something completely new, and decide to gowith hyperloop, could be very difficult (Professor in Rail Vehicle Dynamics, 2018). Represen-tative of Ramboll (2018) on the other hand argues Sweden, as an export-dependent country

83

with heavy cargos such as wood pulp, steel etc., have the opportunity to direct that kind oftransports to the current rail infrastructure meanwhile allocating the passengers to hyperloopinstead.

As somehow similar historical infrastructure examples, Representative of Ramboll (2018) men-tion the projects of building ‘saltsjobanan’ and ‘roslagsbanan’, that originally was initiatedon similar ways as current hyperloop initiatives. These projects were mainly financed by pri-vate investors who bought up some land and started to build up a railway network. After awhile, the network gained increased acceptance and effects such as rapid increase in real-estateconstruction could be observed along the network (Representative of Ramboll, 2018).

6.2.2 Travel Trends and Demand

In a context of Sweden, the demand for international travel is generally lower than for national.The main part of travel in Sweden today is between the countryside and the big cities, andbetween capitals (Researcher in Transport Planing, 2018) although these travels in most casesinclude the utilization of aviation as the first choice of transportation. Researcher in TransportPlaning (2018) argues there to be a demand for fast travel on the Swedish market, and hyper-loop could potentially attract demand from flight, car and train travelers. In addition to traveltime, factors such as passenger comfort and ticket price are determinants in the choice of travelmode (Researcher in Transport Planing, 2018). If a system that offer shorter travel time isintroduced on the market, an induced travel generation will emerge (Researcher in TransportPlaning, 2018). More people will travel, and they will choose the new, fast way of doing so,since it has increased the connectivity on that route (Researcher in Transport Planing, 2018).However, when considering demand, it is necessary to weigh in costs. The cost of buildingthe new infrastructure must be justified by the number of travelers whom will choose it, thisutility-cost calculation is determining (Researcher in Transport Planing, 2018).

Researcher in Transport Planing (2018) reasons that, to understand how to meet the transportdemand of the future, one must first derive a vision of what the system should be used for,how it should be used, and establish the challenges and inefficiencies with the current system.And thereafter, establish how this vision could be realized (Researcher in Transport Planing,2018). Member of the Swedish Parliament (M) (2018) argues that the transport networkand infrastructure in Sweden is well developed, however identifying that current modes oftransportation tend to be insufficient when it comes to environmental sustainability. Hence,more sustainable alternatives for traveling is required (Member of the Swedish Parliament (M),2018). Member of the Swedish Parliament (M) (2018) is convinced that the environmentalconcerns will remain the prominent determiner when it comes to transformational pressure inthe transport sector. Also, rapid changes in customer behaviors could significantly increasethe demand of cargo transportation in the future, meanwhile the issue on how to providemetropolitan areas with greater labor forces, without having to live in the highly utilized urbanareas, will remain a challenge for the transport sector (Member of the Swedish Parliament (M),2018).

84

6.3 The Swedish Society

In terms of introducing large transport systems like hyperloop, (Member of the Swedish Par-liament (M), 2018) recognize that Sweden could prove more challenging in terms of planningand logistics than other countries. This since deciding and building infrastructure in Sweden,in general is bounded by long and complex processes across several municipalities in compar-ison to for example China, whom have a faster process from deciding to actual execution ofthe projects (Deputy Research Director at VTI, 2018). In Sweden, such a cycle would takeextensive amount of time, as aspects of legal, operational, political and national plans must besolved before a decision can be made.

Representative of Ramboll (2018) identifies that there has been a greater curiosity and enthu-siasm for hyperloop in Finland and Norway compared to Sweden, where the concept has beenmet with skepticism. A reason for this could be that, when it comes to new infrastructureprojects in Sweden, the debate tends to focus on the costs of building a new system ratherthan the alternative societal costs of not doing it. Which is something that Deputy ResearchDirector at VTI (2018) argues should be more focused and intertwined in the debate. Repre-sentative of Ramboll (2018) criticize Sweden’s passive philosophy in the hyperloop question,waiting for someone else do realize the technology while Sweden analyze the process. Andconcludes that there is currently no politically organized forum to bring awareness, or discuss,a potential hyperloop system in the Nordic region (Representative of Ramboll, 2018).

6.3.1 Economic Impact as Innovation Leader

Historically, Sweden has been successful in developing and diffusing new technologies, an ex-ample of this when Ericsson developed the global GSM standard. However, Deputy ResearchDirector at VTI (2018) identifies that that a criterion in these cases has been the presenceof national companies and organizations that benefit from the initiative and contribute tolabor force growth in Sweden. Member of the Swedish Parliament (M) (2018) consider thehistorical perspective of technology development in Sweden as a potential strength, if an hy-perloop development initiative becomes relevant. Furthermore, there are clear synergy effectsfor companies involved in the early stages of the development, giving the actors future com-petitive advantage, something that could be beneficial for the Swedish industry (Member ofthe Swedish Parliament (M), 2018). Another aspect where Sweden has been competitive is intesting and experimenting with new technology, especially in the road vehicle industry, wheremany of the industry leading companies perform tests in northern Sweden due to the desiredclimate settings (Deputy Research Director at VTI, 2018).

In similar ways, Lawyers of Setterwalls (2018) identifies that the large construction companiesin Sweden should see great opportunities with partaking in building hyperloop from the be-ginning. And if the decision to build is made and especially if it is decided to be done in arapid pace, it is of interest for all constructions companies as no company on their own couldrealize such a project. There is a lot to gain from being first, as the first company to realizethe technology will have knowledge and experience that no others have. And hence, it wouldopen opportunities for global sales (Lawyers of Setterwalls, 2018).

Representative of FS links (2018) is critical to the Swedish Transport Administrations lack offocus on new technologies in infrastructure projects, this since much of the industry dynamics

85

and success in Sweden is founded in pursuing new technology development. However, thereis an infrastructure development currently taking place in Sweden, namely the developmentof electrified roads (Deputy Research Director at VTI, 2018). A technology where severalresearch and development initiatives has been executed, which has enabled Sweden to becomea world leader within this segment. Deputy Research Director at VTI (2018) identifies that akey aspect for this process has been ambitious, entrepreneurial people pushing for and pursuinginitiatives, something which likely will be required to initiate hyperloop projects in Sweden.

Member of the parliament (L) (2018) is one of the persons who has been trying to increasethe awareness of hyperloop within the Swedish government. He argues that countries, and inparticular governments, that are prepared and willing to obviate regulations and barriers tosupport the development will be the one benefiting the most if hyperloop progresses (Member ofthe parliament (L), 2018). In such a scenario, several hyperloop-related business opportunitiescould arise, creating economic long-term growth for the country (Member of the parliament(L), 2018).

The Nordic countries have, according to Representative of FS links (2018), a sub-optimalbalance in the distribution of governmental subsidies for development. The major part of thisbudget today goes to existing, conservative industries and only a small portion is distributedto emerging new technologies. Conservative industries typically have a slow growth rate ifsuccessful, whereas emerging technologies can reach exponential growth. An example of this isthe finish company Supercell, which was granted one million euros from the government, twoyears later the company was sold for 1.5 billion. Much of this money is today invested backinto new technology (Representative of FS links, 2018). Hyperloop, as it necessitates bothdevelopment of new technology and integration with conservative infrastructure, is positionedin between the two categories. And as Nordic industry companies that have matured over timetends to transition towards slowly progressing organizations, lacking motivation for continuousimprovement, hyperloop could have a positive impact on the growth of the sector by increasingthe competition (Representative of FS links, 2018).

6.3.2 Research in Sweden

If Sweden were to take an early initiative in the development of hyperloop, it would mostlikely be in the context of research (Member of the parliament (L), 2018). It is very unlikelythat the government would invest heavily into a specific new technology, they would ratherpromote the research as a holistic subject (Member of the parliament (L), 2018). However,there is a large disparity in the extent of research and research funding for transportationin Sweden. The main part of research is targeted towards road vehicles and the amount ofresearch on other modes are almost trivial in comparison (Deputy Research Director at VTI,2018). And the technologies and companies compete with each other for funding. In thisenvironment it is difficult to fit in a new technology like hyperloop and consequently hard toattract research funding (Deputy Research Director at VTI, 2018). Member of the parliament(L) (2018) further argue that it would be beneficial for the companies that the government isnot too involved, and controlling the projects, but rather supports these organizations in theresearch and development of the technology.

There are negligible, if any, research being rendered related to hyperloop in Sweden today,and Deputy Research Director at VTI (2018) recognize that there are no individuals directly

86

assigned to create research proposals related to the technology in the current funding structure.This view is further supported by Professor in Rail Vehicle Dynamics (2018) whom mentionsthat there is no, to his knowledge, research on hyperloop being conducted in Sweden. TheDivision of Rail Vehicles at KTH are open for the idea of researching the technology, butno such openings or initiatives exists in Sweden today (Professor in Rail Vehicle Dynamics,2018). When it comes to the The Swedish Transport Agency, there is a very limited budgetfor research and this budget is solely restricted for projects where the Swedish TransportAgency lacks the required knowledge for some specific details connected to administrating theregulations in that project, hence there is no room for other more extensive research (Head ofTechnology and Railway at ST-Agency, 2018). The government seams uninterested to initiateresearch on hyperloop, and no concrete suggestions has been put forward by the hyperloopcompanies (Professor in Rail Vehicle Dynamics, 2018). Deputy Research Director at VTI(2018) identifies that there is an absence of appropriate channels for these kinds of initiatives,and this is something that need to be investigated in the future.

The negligible amount of research on hyperloop in Sweden could also, according to Memberof the Swedish Parliament (M) (2018), be explained by the lack of knowledge revolving thetechnology. While the government cannot control individual research projects, they have theauthority to promote certain research areas, but since there is limited knowledge about thetechnology they are hesitant (Member of the Swedish Parliament (M), 2018). Another aspectthat can be linked to the lack of research on hyperloop in Sweden is that no industry is currentlyconnected to the technology, which makes it harder to get initiatives going (Deputy ResearchDirector at VTI, 2018). Deputy Research Director at VTI (2018) argues that entrepreneurial,genuinely interested, researchers likely will be required to generate enough momentum to ad-dress hyperloop in a research context. There is a need for technical, political, behavioral andfinancial solutions for hyperloop Representative of Ramboll (2018). But there are currently novolunteers in Sweden willing to step up and contribute with solutions and bring interest in thetechnology and business case. Nor to set up a forum where discussion on how their specificindustry and business can contribute and match the needs of the hyperloop companies (Repre-sentative of Ramboll, 2018). The limited collaboration and connection between the hyperloopcommunity and the technical universities in Sweden is a further affecting feature (Professor inTransport Economics, 2018).

To increase awareness and initiate research about hyperloop, Member of the Swedish Parlia-ment (M) (2018) mentions ‘Sallskapet riksdagsledamoter och forskare’ (Rifo) as a potentialchannel. Rifo is a forum for facilitating contacts and dialogue between members of parliamentand researchers, which could be used to inform and clarify the hyperloop concept among politi-cians and scientists (Member of the Swedish Parliament (M), 2018). Member of the SwedishParliament (M) (2018) further recognize public interest as an important aspect to generatepressure on the politicians. And mentions that using of social media channels to raise cog-nizance of the hyperloop development and concept could be an important part of crating publicopinion.

Researcher in Transport Planing (2018) reasons that Sweden should not take an active rolein developing hyperloop, as he considers the potential for future export revenues low. Thissince he believes that the market for the technology is small and that the concept would berelatively easy to copy once its developed. Researcher in Transport Planing (2018) further basehis prediction on the fact that neither the trans-rapid railway, nor Maglev has succeeded in

87

becoming export successes. However, if hyperloop manages to become relatively cheap, therewill be a demand for the technology (Researcher in Transport Planing, 2018). Member of theSwedish Parliament (M) (2018) on the other hand is convinced that Sweden should be a part inthe early stages of research and development of hyperloop. Although this participation shouldbe relatively small in the beginning and include some kind of pre-study (Member of the SwedishParliament (M), 2018). Sweden possess research and industry qualities that can be used toactively contribute to the development of hyperloop (Representative of Ramboll, 2018). Andeven if Sweden will not be the first country in which the technology is realized, partaking indeveloping solutions and apply for patents will put Sweden in a better position when economicand political conditions for a hyperloop system emerge (Representative of Hyperloop Sweden,2018).

Moreover, looking at what innovations that has been developed in Sweden during the lastcentury, it is unrealistically good. Many groundbreaking inventions have originated in Sweden,probably to an extent without comparison anywhere else in the world seen to population(Lawyers of Setterwalls, 2018). However, a trend can be identified today where focus hasshifted towards developing applications and other small, low risk innovation, whilst no onepursues larger projects such as infrastructure and transport questions (Lawyers of Setterwalls,2018).

6.3.3 International Collaboration

Historically, there have been no active collaboration between the Nordic countries related toinfrastructure topics. There are some exceptions on transnational collaboration, however theyare not satisfactory, especially since there are EU-directives to follow (Senior Adviser at ST-Administration, 2018). International collaboration tends to work well when there is a mutualinterest between the involved parties. Although this is not always the case, in fact, one ofthe countries commonly benefit more for a cross-border infrastructure project (Researcher inTransport Planing, 2018). In these cases, the country with the overweighing interest usuallyend up having to carry the majority of the financial responsibility of the project.

Senior Adviser at ST-Administration (2018) argues that there have been some improvementsin international infrastructure collaboration in recent years. Today, a cluster of stakeholdersfrom the different countries meet with common agendas of trans-border links and connectionswhich they investigate and discuss. As neighboring countries regularly have similar socialfunctions and planning systems, these projects tend to work well when there is a mutual interest(Researcher in Transport Planing, 2018). Oresundsbron can be seen as such a positive exampleSenior Adviser at ST-Administration (2018). However, Researcher in Transport Planing (2018)recognize that if the interest on one of the sides is week, there is many things that can hindercross-border projects.

6.4 Hyperloop in Sweden

From a Swedish perspective, there has been very limited interest for the hyperloop conceptalthough there have been some minor activities and respectively Swedish companies involvedwith the technology. The most prominent facilitator of these activities have been FS linkswho formed a partnership with Virgin Hyperloop One in 2016 to study a potential hyperloop

88

route linking Helsinki and Stockholm, via the Aland Islands in the Baltic Sea (Hyperloop-One,2016). The pre-feasibility study where presented in July 2016, and beyond the collaborationbetween Virgin Hyperloop One and FS links the study also included local consultants andexpertise from the consulting firms of KPMG and Ramboll, complemented by the law firmSetterwalls (KPMG, 2016). Currently, FS links are working to make the hyperloop system areality in the Nordic region.

Hyperloop Sweden is the second organization in the Nordic Region that is solely focused onthe hyperloop technology. Hyperloop Sweden is a nonprofit organization with the purpose ofconnecting people which share a specific interest and enthusiasm for hyperloop, and who arewilling to partake in the process of realizing the technology in Sweden. Currently, HyperloopSweden is trying to get a serious study in motion and create a foundation for fruitful discussionssurrounding hyperloop in Sweden.

Except these two solely hyperloop focused companies, no other companies in Sweden havemore or less been notably observed to be directly involved with the hyperloop technology.

When it comes to hyperloop in Sweden, Representative of FS links (2018) identifies thatthe pressure increases, boosting the discussion, because of the established partnerships thathas been reached between hyperloop and Estonia, Finland and Norway. As a response to thisincreased pressure, FS links have received invitations from the parliament of Sweden to initiatea discussion (Representative of FS links, 2018). Representative of FS links (2018) stressesthat the questions around hyperloop at this stage should be set to a pragmatic level, wherethe invitations should be focused on potentially joining the process of setting up regulatoryframeworks that will form the future standards of the transport mode, as this would be thefirst delivery for a functioning test system.

Finland is already involved in this process (Representative of FS links, 2018). Although theprocess of taking hyperloop to Finland had come a long way in November, now however itseems like there has been some setbacks for the project (Lawyers of Setterwalls, 2018). Onereason for this is that the hyperloop companies have made important progress in other places,such as Dubai and India, where framework agreements have been signed. It becomes a matterof where hyperloop should invest their resources, would you rather work with those whom areexcited about realizing this or with people that are skeptical and slow, as the politician havebeen in the Nordic countries (Lawyers of Setterwalls, 2018).

However, as Hyperloop wants to work globally and preferably in a highly regulated market,Dubai and India might not be the optimal fit from that aspect (Lawyers of Setterwalls, 2018).The decisions in these countries are made by a few people, making it easier to push this kindof project through. However, as these countries have significantly lower regulatory standards,in comparison to the Nordic countries, realizing a hyperloop system here would give muchmore credibility. If hyperloop is realized in for example Dubai, this would not necessarily openopportunities in more regulated markets, where the technology would still need to go throughthe regulatory processes. If it is developed in Finland however, this would most likely beaccepted globally as the Nordic countries have some of the highest regulatory standards in theworld (Lawyers of Setterwalls, 2018).

Moreover, Lawyers of Setterwalls (2018) emphasizes the match between hyperloop and Swedento be more or less perfect. Sweden wants to be a country for future mobility and wants to

89

drive innovation forward, and hyperloop want to find a country that is willing to bet on thetechnology. Sweden proclaims to aim on diving the development of climate friendly transportalternatives, which hyperloop potentially will become (Lawyers of Setterwalls, 2018).

In the Nordic region, FS links are currently investigating the possibilities to build hyperloopin tunnels, as this would reduce or eliminate the barriers of environmental permits that couldsignificantly delay the realization of hyperloop. Although, Representative of FS links (2018)identifies some problems with building tunnels in Sweden, as mountain heat and other groundinfrastructure could be in the way, and hence extensive studies and planning must be conductedin advance.

Both Member of the Swedish Parliament (M) (2018) and Head of Technology and Railwayat ST-Agency (2018) are positive to hyperloop becoming a future reality in Sweden. If thetechnology is proven feasible, Member of the Swedish Parliament (M) (2018) argues that theintegration of hyperloop in the Swedish transport network is obvious. Head of Technologyand Railway at ST-Agency (2018) on the other hand is a bit more conservative and deems itto be reasonably likely that hyperloop will enter the Swedish market. This opinion is basedpartly on that there are many working towards realizing the technology, that the process hasprogressed rapidly in other countries and that hyperloop seems to be an attractive mode oftransportation for the needs of the humanity (Head of Technology and Railway at ST-Agency,2018). Despite this, Head of Technology and Railway at ST-Agency (2018) concludes that ahyperloop system is unlikely to be ready within the coming 10 years, but rather argues thata time horizon of 15 years is more reasonable. Researcher in Transport Planing (2018) on theother hand, do not think that hyperloop will be realized in Sweden and base this opinion onthe fact that no full-scale facility, proving that the technology is safe and economically viable,exists today. However, he will likely change his mind as soon as such a solution is presented,and the system is fully functional.

Representative of Ramboll (2018), whom is involved in the process of bringing hyperloop tothe Nordic region, believes a system will be in place in Sweden by 2030. Hyperloop Swedenmakes the same prediction stating that, while Sweden unlikely will be the first country to havea commercial hyperloop system, Sweden will have a commercial hyperloop system in place bythe year 2030 (Representative of Hyperloop Sweden, 2018). This since other parts of the worldseems better suited geographically and population wise Representative of Hyperloop Sweden(2018). Elaborating that, when introducing a new technology, it is almost always easier insome regions than others. However, the more developed the technology gets, the easier it willbe for others to adopt it (Representative of Hyperloop Sweden, 2018).

Representative of Ramboll (2018) particularly supports the route Stockholm - Uppsala –Norrtalje, arguing that this specific rout is justified by that very few citizens currently livebetween Arlanda – Norrtalje. And when considering the historical perspective of the construc-tion of Roslagsbanan and Saltsjobanan, these projects lead to substantial real-estate develop-ment connected to the networks, which emphasizes that several residential areas could be builtas a first step towards a hyperloop system (Representative of Ramboll, 2018). Besides this,such a route could also constitute as a start hub for a future connection to Finland, and ifa similar route was built in Finland in parallel, the process could be accelerated significantly(Representative of Ramboll, 2018). Senior Adviser at ST-Administration (2018) on the otherhand identifies the link between Stockholm and Oslo as strategically important, a route where

90

the rail connection today is very poor. He predicts that this path could be interesting foralternative transportation, and that something will be made to improve this connection in ourlifetime.

Before hyperloop can become a reality in Sweden, a decision on where to locate the systemin respect to other modes of transportation on the market needs to be addressed (DeputyResearch Director at VTI, 2018). Such a process could become very challenging and timeconsuming in Sweden, and possibly take up 15-20 years after the technology has been provenfeasible (Deputy Research Director at VTI, 2018). Although private funding could speed up theprocess, the political and legal aspects and agreements cannot be neglected (Deputy ResearchDirector at VTI, 2018). However, Representative of Ramboll (2018) proclaims that managingthe safety standards, in parallel with route and environmental impact descriptions, in a timehorizon of 2025 could be realistic. This would make it possible to finalize a hyperloop systemin Sweden by 2030 Representative of Ramboll (2018).

6.4.1 How to Introduce Hyperloop in Sweden

As both the technology and the actors on the market are set on existing infrastructure, fewwants to take the risk of pursuing the hyperloop technology, even if it would potentially bequite easy to recognize a return on investment (Senior Adviser at ST-Administration, 2018).The speed and suppleness of hyperloop could motivate such a return, as large flows could beremedied, hence a comprehensive system study, where all aspects are considered, needs to beconducted (Senior Adviser at ST-Administration, 2018). Another short-term problem is theincreased capital cost if tunnels would have to be constructed, something Representative ofFS links (2018) argues to be justified and quickly refundable by the wider economic benefitsof hyperloop. FS links business case indicates that the economic benefit received from ahyperloop system connecting Stockholm and Helsinki would be up to one billion per year,so every year the project gets delayed would, in terms of loss of economic growth, be veryexpensive (Representative of FS links, 2018).

In a similar context, Deputy Research Director at VTI (2018) identifies that it is important to,in addition to estimating the societal costs of building a system, also derive what it would costthe society if it is not built. For instance, if people in the future are not able to convenientlytravel to work, pick up kids from school etc., this should also be considered as a cost (DeputyResearch Director at VTI, 2018). Likewise, aspects such as the budgeting of the project,pay-back time and ticket prices needs to be considered (Deputy Research Director at VTI,2018).

It is extremely hard to introduce new technological solutions for infrastructure in Sweden, andas an example Senior Adviser at ST-Administration (2018) compares hyperloop to the currentpursuit of implementing electrified roads. This has proven to be almost impossible, even ifthe technological and social barriers to entry for electrified roads are much more modest thanfor hyperloop. As hyperloop could be argued more disruptive than electrified roads, SeniorAdviser at ST-Administration (2018) concludes that it likely will be even more difficult torealize the technology. And the combination between the technology state, market acceptanceand the path dependence, together with the fact that it is a completely new way of traveling,will increases the boundaries even further (Senior Adviser at ST-Administration, 2018).

91

Adding to this, Senior Adviser at ST-Administration (2018) raise concerns regarding hyper-loops interaction to other modes of transportation and potential psychological counter forcesrelated to unknown social consequences of a system like this. Introducing a new mode oftransportation into the infrastructure mix takes substantial investments and commitment andrequires a whole new way of thinking. The Swedish Transport Administration are fully focusedon the existing technology solutions, and resources for this type of venture does not exist (Se-nior Adviser at ST-Administration, 2018). Consequently, hyperloop is probably the mostchallenging endeavor that could be envisioned, since the magnitude of change it necessitatesis so large.

To become an alternative on the Swedish market the safety, environmental sustainability andcompetitive advantage of hyperloop, in relation to other alternatives, needs to be proven.Furthermore, ways to finance the construction must be found, and raising funds to finance theproject could be very difficult (Researcher in Transport Planing, 2018). Furthermore, to buildand operate the facility, it needs to be insured, and for this to happen the technology needsto gain acceptance from insurance companies (Representative of Hyperloop Sweden, 2018).Adding to this, several certificates, controls and approvals will likely be needed from a rangeof government authorities before commercial traffic can be realized.

To get things started in Sweden, it likely comes down to that a government initiative is needed,as private actors commonly are unwilling to all the risk involved in these types of projects(Senior Adviser at ST-Administration, 2018). FS Links however mainly focus on Industrialpartnerships as it, according to Representative of FS links (2018), is the best way, because whenthe industry announce that they want to realize something, the government tend to follow.Although, Head of Technology and Railway at ST-Agency (2018) is uncertain regarding if asolely private investor has the authority to expropriate the land needed. Head of Technologyand Railway at ST-Agency (2018) deems the planning processes of building hyperloop inSweden to be extensive and time consuming, including features such as permission to buildon ground, redeem land etc. Hence, Head of Technology and Railway at ST-Agency (2018)argues that Sweden might not have to be the first country to bring hyperloop to a reality. Butif decisions are made to build hyperloop in Sweden, it would be very beneficial if the SwedishTransport Agency was a part of the process from the beginning, as they could provide valuableexperiences for this process. Otherwise, the project risk making decisions that the SwedishTransport Agency later might not approve, and that would be devastating for the project(Head of Technology and Railway at ST-Agency, 2018).

In terms of planning, it is theoretically possible to introduce a new transport system such ashyperloop in Sweden if it can be fitted into the existing legislation. This could be a good alter-native until new regulations have been developed, although the new transport system wouldneed to meet the requirements regulated in that legislation (Researcher in Transport Planing,2018). In addition to the legislation, an organization that plans, operates and manage the newtransport system will be required. This could potentially be the Swedish Transport Authori-ties, or an entirely new government agency. And if the project is established by private actors,the Swedish Transport Authorities could be the supervising authority (Researcher in Trans-port Planing, 2018). Another necessity is that the authority needs to decide the appropriateownership of the system as well as outline ticket systems and regulations. In addition, thisprocess must be complemented by the critical decisions on where the system should be builtwith respect to the municipal co-funder rights, and the party responsible for such a decision

92

is not defined (Deputy Research Director at VTI, 2018). Deciding on and executing the con-struction of a demonstration system will most likely go significantly smoother than building afull-scale commercial system in Sweden, where several challenging legal and regulatory aspectsmust be resolved (Deputy Research Director at VTI, 2018).

Senior Adviser at ST-Administration (2018) further recognize that it will be necessary to testand verify the technology at test facilities, showing that it works and provides concrete benefitsto existing solutions, to gain interest from The Swedish Transport Administration. A facilitylike this probably needs to be built on collaboration with a large organization, with deepfinancial pockets, although large regulatory obstacles can be identified. Hyperloop howeverdoes not seem to reason in this manner, they appear to pursue building large scale systemsdirectly, which according to Senior Adviser at ST-Administration (2018) will be extremelydifficult. Senior Adviser at ST-Administration (2018) argues that a more suitable strategy forthe European and Swedish market would be to focus on freight transport, where hyperloopcould prove to be both very efficient and financially advantageous. The resistance in thismarket segment is likely lower, and if such a system is in place and proves functional, thiscould open the possibilities for expanding to passenger transportation (Senior Adviser at ST-Administration, 2018).

6.4.2 Regulations

As hyperloop is a new mode of transport, it is likely that a completely new set of rules andregulations needs to be developed. In the initial phase, safety and certification ensuring safetesting needs to be articulated. Subsequent, regulations for the hyperloop system and thecommercial exploration of it needs to be developed (Arup et al., 2017). As hyperloop doesnot run on roads nor rails in the traditional manner, this offers new issues related to creatingstandards for safe operation and what department that can and should issue and enforce thenew regulations (Taylor et al., 2016). However, it is likely that influences and some standardswill be transferred and adopted from current regulations for other modes. Hence, a briefexplanation of the regulatory standards for transport in Sweden will be presented. And ashyperloop arguably bares the most resemblance to rail travel, this will be in focus.

Regarding railway safety within the European Union, the European Rail Agency (ERA) fromthe EU-commission is the responsible authority (Patten and Warner, 2015). They formulatebinding regulations for the railway sector, including the manufacturers. Further, ERA governsthe coordination of harmonizing the rail regulations within EU by outlining common safetygoals, methods and indicators in accordance with directive 2004/49/EG, including amend-ments. And in the cases where measures require new legislation, ERA shall propose these tothe commission (Patten and Warner, 2015). The Swedish Transport Agency, who is the railauthority on a national level in Sweden, is the Swedish representative in ERA. The SwedishTransport Agency governs the supervision of the Swedish railway and the national railway leg-islations, which are collected in TSFS (Transportstyrelsens forfattningssamling) (Patten andWarner, 2015).

From a political perspective, Member of the parliament (L) (2018) consider Sweden to be rela-tively successful in investigating and designing regulations, particularly for long-term projectsthat takes several years to diffuse. In the process of implementing and creating a regulatoryframework around hyperloop, (Member of the parliament (L), 2018) argues that if a demand

93

for hyperloop emerge in Sweden, this process would unlikely constitute any significant problemfor the diffusion of the technology. The Swedish Transport Agency will most likely borrow alot from the rail regulation when creating regulations for hyperloop, as the two modes arguablyhave many system similarities and that the demand from those who travel with it would becomparable (Head of Technology and Railway at ST-Agency, 2018). Nor Lawyers of Setter-walls (2018) can se any major implications with adapting the railway regulations to hyperloop.In addition, Head of Technology and Railway at ST-Agency (2018) conclude that the processmost likely would include representatives from the aviation section, to see if some features canbe extracted from that regulation. And is certain that the process of creating a regulatoryframework for hyperloop would be manageable and expedient.

However, there is one thing that stands out as Lawyers of Setterwalls (2018) see it, namelythe question about taking land space, either by using already existing land or it will be nec-essary to expropriate new land. The benefit with hyperloop is that it can efficiently be builtunder ground, through mountains or be put above ground on pylons (Lawyers of Setterwalls,2018). This will nevertheless entail practical problems, should it be allowed to expropriate forthe purpose of building hyperloop. The Swedish railway legislation has specific rules aboutexpropriation, for the purpose of building railway, in addition to the common expropriationregulations. It is not unlikely that a similar exception would be included in the regulations forhyperloop.

Another subject is to determining what government authority that should handle the transportmode need to be appointed and for this substantial practical work might be required (Lawyersof Setterwalls, 2018). The Swedish Transport Agency is the regulator for all current transportmodes in Sweden, perhaps they should be the regulator for hyperloop as well but are they wellsuited for this technology (Lawyers of Setterwalls, 2018). Safety is another aspect, where anew set of rules needs to be outlined. In this process all small questions will result in largeregulatory packages, although Lawyers of Setterwalls (2018) does not see this as a clear barrier.It comes down to if a will to do this exists and if someone wants to take care of it. However,many of the legal challenges encountered for hyperloop will be the same as for electrified roads,challenges which Lawyers of Setterwalls (2018) has looked in to and presented as manageablein a report.

If hyperloop should offer short travel times on long, cross-border, routes, this will require anetwork with an international standard, and such a standard demand very large, collabora-tive efforts. Cross-border infrastructure projects needs legislations regulating the connections(Researcher in Transport Planing, 2018). Adding to this, there are challenges related to crossboarder traffic which needs to be dealt with if a connection between Sweden and Finland issought after. Particularly difficult will be the perspective of Aland, as Aland has a tax excep-tion in EU. For people working and living in different countries, it needs to be determined iftax should be paid in the nation of residence or in the nation where the person work. Sim-ilar issues were dealt with when Oresundsbron was built, where clear rules for practice andtax exceptions was delineated, these regulations can be beneficial to look at in the context ofhyperloop (Lawyers of Setterwalls, 2018). Although cross boarder transports will add aspectsfor the process of developing a hyperloop legislation, Lawyers of Setterwalls (2018) argues thatthis will be manageable if both states are willing to make this happen.

Head of Technology and Railway at ST-Agency (2018) stress that an international institution

94

creating the regulations and a common standard, probably would be the most suitable alter-native. Similar international collaborations exist for the other modes today. For rail transportthere is a large collaboration within EU, where different European Railway groups, consistingof representatives from the member countries, meet every year to create and evaluate require-ment documents (Head of Technology and Railway at ST-Agency, 2018). For road traffic, theUN is in charge of the main part of the requirements, while aviation have a special interna-tional organization that is responsible for the corresponding subjects (Head of Technology andRailway at ST-Agency, 2018). These cross-border regulations could potentially be adopted byhyperloop.

If, however a completely new set of legislations is needed, the process of developing sucha framework would be very difficult and time consuming (Researcher in Transport Planing,2018). It would have to fit in to the existing plans, concerning both railway plans, detailplans and city development plans. Even if a privet actor wants to build a new railway, theauthorities will need to be involved, as it currently is impossible to build without governmentalinvolvement (Lawyers of Setterwalls, 2018).

Moreover, as the hyperloop discussion is focusing a lot on the construction of the system,another important question such as how it should be operated can be easily forgot (Lawyersof Setterwalls, 2018). Whom should manage the pods, should it be different actors as onthe Swedish railways or should it be a single organization managing the whole system. Thecapacity distribution of the railway network is a very heavy process, with difficulties meetingthe demand from all the different actors. Whether hyperloop should be operated in a similarfashion, allowing anyone to send pods through it or if it should be a closed system. Togetherwith if hyperloop should be operated by the state, by private actors or as a combination willbe important questions (Lawyers of Setterwalls, 2018). The companies developing hyperlooponly want to sell and realize the technology, they have no interest in managing the operationswhen the system is in place (Lawyers of Setterwalls, 2018).

Concludingly, Lawyers of Setterwalls (2018) proclaims that there are no challenges impossibleto overcome for hyperloop in the Nordic region. The process only necessitates that substantialamounts of time and money is invested, together with a positive will to change the Nordiccountries. Sweden will not be able to handle this on their own, without involvement from theEuropean union, as much of the legislations originates from European regulations (Lawyers ofSetterwalls, 2018). If hyperloop is realized in Dubai, this will most likely look very different incomparison to what it would look like in Sweden as the regulatory standards are completelydifferent.

6.4.3 Financing Hyperloop

Financing hyperloop in Sweden can be identified as a barrier (Representative of FS links,2018). Recently, Sweden have had bad experience with large projects such as Nya Karolinska,where the cost control was insufficient. This has likely increased the caution for new large-scaleprojects and created a barrier for governmental financing of projects like hyperloop (Represen-tative of FS links, 2018). However, Representative of Hyperloop Sweden (2018) argues that ifhyperloop are to become a reality in Sweden, it most likely needs to be accomplished as a com-bination of private and public organizations, since the socio-economic benefits from hyperloopis expected to be great. Also Representative of Ramboll (2018) identifies that there is mainly

95

two alternative ways of financing infrastructure projects, either by the government or by pri-vate investors, where the first one is almost exclusively the one used in Sweden (Representativeof Ramboll, 2018).

Researcher in Transport Planing (2018) states that, if hyperloop is proven safe and envi-ronmentally beneficial, this could attract the interest from society, increasing the chance forgovernmental funding. And if hyperloop proves profitable in socio-economic terms, the publicsector will be interested and want to partake in realizing the technology, even if the investmentcannot be recouped on its own (Researcher in Transport Planing, 2018). Another alternative isif the project could be realized by private capital, this is likely the first-hand solution and wouldbe possible if hyperloop delivers value back to the investors. The third option is a mixtureof private and public funding, called Public Private Partnership, PPP (Researcher in Trans-port Planing, 2018). Deputy Research Director at VTI (2018) acknowledge that the Swedishgovernment has a limited budget, which entails that alternative financing models might haveto be considered. Thereof, the combination between private and governmental funding is themost likely Deputy Research Director at VTI (2018).

However, to open for either of the financing alternatives above, hyperloop first need to gainsome kind of political acceptance (Representative of Ramboll, 2018). Besides this, more struc-tural questions regarding what state agencies or private companies that should own the trans-portation mode need to be solved (Head of Technology and Railway at ST-Agency, 2018).Deputy Research Director at VTI (2018) makes the comparison with the owner structure ofrailways in Sweden, where the government owns the infrastructure while private companies ormunicipalities owns the vehicles running on it.

To date, the focus from FS links has been on attracting private capital. This since they havethe belief that once the privet sector is sufficiently involved, the public sector will follow dueto decreased risk (Representative of FS links, 2018). More specifically, the company targetinvestors whom potentially would benefit from partaking in realizing the technology. However,infrastructure investments financed exclusively by private investors must be motivated by fu-ture earnings from that system, as private investors cannot recoup socio-economic factors in thesame way that the public sector can (Representative of Hyperloop Sweden, 2018). Hence, bothRepresentative of FS links (2018) and Representative of Hyperloop Sweden (2018) acknowledgethat governmental co-financing and involvement likely will be necessary for full-scale systems.In Finland, an agreement has been reached of a up to 50% co-financing, meanwhile there isstill significant resistance in Sweden, where no such promise has been made (Representative ofFS links, 2018).

Representative of Hyperloop Sweden (2018) argues that there is a shortage of competencein Sweden’s bigger cities, which together with high real-estate prices could be eased throughhyperloop. The technology opens new opportunities to live and work in a wider geographicalregion, enabling a larger area for companies to recruit specific competence from (Representa-tive of Hyperloop Sweden, 2018). This type of socio-economic benefits received from hyperloopshould encourage the government to partake in the development and financing of the infras-tructure (Representative of Hyperloop Sweden, 2018). Representative of FS links (2018) agreeand recognizes that hyperloop would open new opportunities to solve the lack of residences inthe larger cities in a climate smart way.

96

Alternative means of funding have been considered by FS Links. First, a broad global networkof financiers and private investors with interest in hyperloop and realization of the technologyin the Nordic region have been investigated (Representative of FS links, 2018). Secondly, co-financing the project with individuals and industries that would benefit from the system hasbeen considered. Increasing the accessibility of geographical regions will increase the values ofreal-estate which potentially could finance the whole project if a part of this increase can beallocated back to the project (Representative of FS links, 2018).

6.5 The National Negotiation on Housing and Infrastructure (Sverigeforhan-dlingen)

In 2014, on behalf of the Swedish government, a committee under the Naringsdepartimentetwas assigned the project, the National Negotiation on Housing and Infrastructure (NNHI),with the main purpose to bringing the three largest cities of Sweden; Stockholm, Gothenburgand Malmo closer together with HSR technology. The mission was to enable a rapid imple-mentation of the project, including propositions of financing models, expansion strategy andsolutions for how to integrate with the urban areas. The vision was to enable fast, punctualand competitive transportation in large-regional traffic. The outcome is expected to increasepublic transportation, improve availability and intensify the construction of residences in thethree metropolitan regions. Besides this, an important aspect of the project was to free upthe capacity on the existing southern and western trails for more regional and freight trafficas well as increased punctuality (Sverigeforhandlingen, 2016).

As the final decision regarding NNHI will affect the possibilities for hyperloop to emergeas a viable transportation mode on the Swedish market, it has been briefly included in thestudy. This to give a holistic perspective over the proposal and to emphasize that it currentlyconstitutes a prominent part of the decision-making processes for long-term infrastructureplanning in Sweden.

The ST-Administration has had an important part in the process of NNHI since it was initiatiedin 2014. In the process, the ST-Administration has developed large parts of the documenta-tion and analyzes requested in the projects meanwhile municipalities and regions conductedand delivered utility analyzes to the NNHI (Sverigeforhandlingen, 2018). These included theexpected added value and city-center arrangements on locally and regionally aspects in termsof travel time, housing, labor market, industry, environment and social benefits for each mu-nicipality or region. As a final step, NNHI delivered a final report with recommendations tothe government of Sweden in December, 2017 (Sverigeforhandlingen, 2017).

6.5.1 The Final Report

The final report by the NNHI is proposed to increase the capacity, bring the three metropolitanareas of Sweden closer together and provide a sustainable and competitive mode of transporta-tion. As part of addressing Sweden’s aggressive ambition to be the first fossil free country andcarbon dioxide neutral by 2045, Sverigeforhandlingen (2017) stresses the necessity of developingthe high-speed railway system.

As the population of Sweden is projected to increase rapidly and the population increasemainly is allocated to the large or midsized cities of Sweden, new high-speed transportation,

97

connecting the cities, can provide beneficial socio-economic growth. Currently, the capacityof the national railway infrastructure is almost fully utilized, increasing risks of disturbances,delays and speed limitations. The rail network in Sweden today has large problems withvariations in speed between different trains, and it is necessary to separate slow and fast trafficto increase its efficiency (Professor in Rail Vehicle Dynamics, 2018). Professor in Rail VehicleDynamics (2018) argues that an investment in HSR, as proposed in the NNHI, is justified tomeet the future transport demand in Sweden but points out that the proposed long routes in theNNHI could become too expensive for Sweden to afford (Professor in Rail Vehicle Dynamics,2018).

To utilize the socio-economic benefits and financing of the project as soon as possible, NNHIsuggested the construction of the HSR network to start as soon as possible. The new railwaysshould be integrated and compatible with the existing network and hence enabling the newHSR trains, with speeds up to 320 km/h, to be utilized on the old railways. However, NNHIconcludes that it would be advantageous to build the high-speed network for higher speeds thanthe proposed 320 km/h. Thereof, the routes will be constrained to a limited number of stationsin order to preserve the balance of short travel time between end stations. Sverigeforhandlingen(2017) states that the railway should be built on modern but well tested technology and needto enable integration with present infrastructure, allowing HSR trains to run on regular tracksconnecting the city centers.

However, these incremental improvements in HSR do not come for free. NNHI estimatedthe project to cost somewhere between 190 and 330 billion SEK. Consequently a financingmodel where parts of the future value created could be used to finance the project itself isproposed. Also co-finance of the project could be achieved as benefits gained by municipalitiesand counties affected by the HSR, and in particular related to the increased real-estate values,could be utilized. Despite this, NNHI estimated that this funding will only cover 5-10% of thetotal investment, why the remaining part of the costs need to be funded by the state budgetor debt financing (Sverigeforhandlingen, 2016).

With debt financing, municipal co-financing and infrastructure financing fees, the project couldpossibly be fully operational by 2035. However, without debt financing the projects is morelikely to be finalized at earliest 2064, but more likely closer to 2095 (Sverigeforhandlingen,2017). And as the project is tremendous, requires alternative means of funding and significantlylong-term planning, the government still have not made a final assessment of the proposal andhence no final conclusion have been reached.

6.6 Implications on Hyperloop

If Sweden decides to invest in HSR, as proposed in the NNHI, the transport capacity will besufficient on those routes and hyperloop will not arguably be needed (Researcher in Trans-port Planing, 2018). This will in a short-term perspective probably close the possibilities forother projects such as hyperloop as the government will unlikely be willing to increase thetotal volume of investments for infrastructure and a direction towards HSR has been chosen(Researcher in Transport Planing, 2018). It does not, however mean that hyperloop couldnot be interesting for other applications and routes, such as Stockholm – Helsinki, where norailway exists or is possible to build. And if the NNHI does not go through, hyperloop couldbecome an interesting alternative for routes where the railways struggle (Professor in Rail

98

Vehicle Dynamics, 2018).

If the HSR project is initiated and finalized in 15-20 years, it will not be more than a small partof the total state budget and after the project, other solutions can be evaluated. If hyperloophas a fully developed system by then, an opportunity will be opened (Researcher in TransportPlaning, 2018).

99

Chapter Summary

In this chapter, the empirical material related to the dynamics of the Swedish transportationmarket has been presented. It was identified that there is a need to expand the capacity in thenetwork and that there has been a historical lack of larger infrastructure investments since themid 50’s in Sweden. However, for hyperloop to reach a market acceptance in Sweden severalaspects still need to be addressed, from insurance, permits and funding to the maturity and sus-ceptibility of the individuals whom are traveling with hyperloop. Travel trends indicate that themain part of travel in Sweden is domestic destinations between countryside and the big cities,where these travels in most cases include aviation as the first hand choice. As environmentalconcerns will remain a prominent determiner when it comes to transformational pressure inthe Swedish transport sector, this could arguably challenge the sustainability of current mode oftransportation. Related to the Swedish Society, the long and complex processes across severalmunicipalities could make the diffusion of hyperloop more challenging. Historically, Swedenhas been successful in developing and diffusing new technologies and empirical data from theinterviews indicates that this potentially could be the case for hyperloop as well if Sweden be-comes an innovation leader. The research initiatives for hyperloop in Sweden was identified aslow, or rather negligible. And similar findings were identified in the case of received interestfrom the government authorities in Sweden. Moreover, the lack of interest for the hyperlooptechnology makes it challenging for the small Swedish community of actors involved with thehyperloop technology to find appropriate channels for discussions. Further, it has been iden-tified that there are several challenges to introduce a new mode of transportation in Sweden,where aspects such as the immaturity of the technology, regulations and financing of the hy-perloop system will constitute barriers. Lastly, an overview of the proposal to build HSR inSweden, NNHI, was presented to emphasize the current discussion of expanding the capacityin the network and constructing a high-speed ground transport alternative in Sweden.

100

7 Analysis and Discussion

In this chapter the gathered empirical data is processed and analyzed through the previouslyintroduced frameworks, complemented by the theoretical field. Firstly, the technical maturity ofthe hyperloop technology is evaluated through the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) framework,where the challenges and concerns still surrounding the technology is recognized and empha-sized. Secondly, the framework of Characteristics of Diffusion is used to analyze hyperloopwith respect to the five parameters; Relative advantage, Compatibility, Complexity, Observabil-ity and Trialability to assess the potential for diffusion of the hyperloop concept. Lastly, theMulti-Level Perspective (MLP) framework is applied to analyze the dynamics of the Swedishtransport market, connect hyperloop to the Swedish context and determine how this will affecthyperloop’s ability to emerge as a viable alternative in Sweden.

7.1 Technology Readiness Level

After Elon Musk published the Hyperloop Alpha white paper (Musk, 2013), several companieshave picked up the hyperloop concept with the purpose of creating the next mode of trans-portation. However, the Hyperloop Alpha white paper is a conceptual feasibility study of thephenomenon on a specific route, and although that analysis emphasizes several superior per-formance improvements achieved by the hyperloop system, the concept still has an uncertainfuture ahead. Hence, it will be crucial for the companies developing the technology to succeedin bringing the technology to a proof-of-concept stage and fulfill the performances predictedby its inventors.

In that context, the technology and the transport system itself needs to significantly advancein terms of technology readiness level, TRL, to become a reliable and credible alternative onthe transportation market. Moreover, empirics from this thesis indicates that several crucialactors in the transportation sector, at least in Sweden, neglect the viability of the hyperloopsystem either by questioning the actual feasibility of the technology or simply by justifying arushed rejection of the system based on the unsatisfied fulfillment of lower degrees of TRLsand hence questioning the maturity of the system.

It is easy to get lost in the glorified marketing of the “fantastic” hyperloop system that issuperior to all other modes of transportation and comes with astonishing benefits. This ishow the enthusiastic entrepreneurial leaders behind the development of the system marketingit. Including extremely high ambitions, critical timeframes and sometimes less feasible per-formance predictions of the system for the time being. However, the empirics in this thesisindicates several critical aspects, inducing concerns regarding how the current identified tech-nical challenges will be solved, how time consuming such a process can become, and furtherquestions on if the system from a more holistic perspective can become feasible or not.

It is however important to emphasize the fact that the Hyperloop Alpha white paper waspresented in 2013 (Musk, 2013), and hence that there only has been approximately 5 yearsof development since then. Up till today, the network of entrepreneurs, engineers, companies’etc. working to bring the hyperloop system to a reality has had an exponential growth, andso has their complementing funding. It is no longer a question on a conceptual transportationmode that possesses several performance improvements, but rather an emerging communityof individuals that daily works together or in parallel to prove the technology and the system

101

feasible.

While the technology development progresses rapidly, hyperloop is still a very immature modeof transportation and there is a high rivalry amongst the leading companies striving to be thefirst to bring the system to a reality. Hence, a large part of hyperloops R&D activities are bondto in-house activities that are performed beyond the knowledge of the public. Despite this fact,the progression and fulfillment of certain milestones are being announced to the public andthese observations can be set in relation to TRLs to analyze how technically mature the systemis.

With a rapid progression of the hyperloop development, empirics indicate that during the firstyears, approximately 2013-2014, the largest companies behind developing the technology werefounded, e.g. Virgin Hyperloop One and HTT. At this stage the main focus were on feasibilitystudies of the hyperloop concept, explaining the applications that would be used to realizethe hyperloop technology (Musk, 2013; Hyperloop Transportation Technologies, 2018a; VirginHyperloop One, 2018). This could correspond to the fulfillment of basic principles observedand reported (TRL 1), technology concepts to be formulated (TRL 2). And with feasibilityand analytical studies to connect the technology with an appropriate context, which could beargued to be the first steps towards the maturity of TRL 3.

Although, in order for the system to gain a full maturity of TRL 3, performing experimen-tal, laboratory-based studies to physically validate that previous predictions or applicationsare correct and feasible is required (Mankins, 1995). As the development progression differsamongst the hyperloop companies, each company will be presented separately below and setin relation to the TRL scale.

Virgin Hyperloop One

When it comes to Virgin Hyperloop One, they have managed to validate the design of the motorand power electronics system through a live Propulsion System Open Air test (in 2016), wherea sled accelerated to 136 mph in 2.2 seconds. They have also built the first full-size physical testfacility, Development Loop (DevLoop) (Virgin Hyperloop One, 2018). The system constitutesa 500-meter long test tube in the desert of Nevada and the construction was completed in 2017(Virgin Hyperloop One, 2018). Up till today, DevLoop and Virgin Hyperloop One still holdthe world record by accelerating their passenger pod XP-1 to a speed of 387 kilometer per hour(Virgin Hyperloop One, 2018). As some components have been established to work together(tubes and pod), which could be argued to correspond to a maturity of TRL 4, the system stillhas a lot to prove in terms of the meeting the predicted performances (e.g. velocity, frequencyof pods, switches etc), hence limiting the maturity of the entire system more towards currentlyexploring TRL 3 (Mankins, 1995).

Most recently, Virgin Hyperloop One have announced the intent to build a hyperloop betweenPune and Mumbai, that will start as a demonstration track to increase the maturity of thesystem (Hyperloop-One, 2018c). However, before the construction can begin, a six-monthfeasibility study must be performed, followed by determining the public-private partnershipstructure that will be required. After this it will take approximately two to three years to havethe demonstration track ready. The platform can then be utilized for testing, certification,and regulating the system for commercial operations (Hyperloop-One, 2018c). And once this

102

system is in place, it could possibly be utilized to reach a maturity of TRL 4.

Meanwhile in Dubai, Virgin Hyperloop One announced the collaboration with DP World,the largest investor in Hyperloop One, to introduce the DP World Cargospeed, an interna-tional brand for hyperloop-enabled cargo transportation (Hyperloop-One, 2018a). However,the agreement so far seems to be more at an international branding and concepts stage, ratherthan filing permits to start construction of a hyperloop system. Hence it is unlikely to increasethe maturity of the system in a short-term perspective.

Beyond the technical progression, Virgin Hyperloop One unveiled the first physical experienceof the hyperloop prototype design passenger pod in the beginning of 2018 (Hyperloop-One,2018b). It was open for the public and the pod were presented with two classes, a gold classand a silver class. This event increased the maturity and reduced uncertainties regarding howthe customer could come to interact with the pods significantly. Although the pod must beintegrated with the tubes to actually validate the performance of the system and hence increasethe TRLs of the transport system.

Hyperloop Transportation Technologies

Hyperloop Transportation Technologies (HTT), who today has a team of over 800 individualsacross 6 continents, have secured 8 government agreements, built R&D centers and started anumber of feasibility studies across the world (Hyperloop Transportation Technologies, 2018a).Most recently HTT announced the agreement to open a facility for the development and testingof hyperloop technologies in Toulouse, France (Hyperloop Transportation Technologies, 2017b).In early 2018, the test facility was projected to be able to provide a pod used as a proof ofconcept in the ongoing negotiations and feasibility studies currently taking place across theworld. However, this has still not yet been fulfilled. April 12th, 2018, HTT announced thatthe first set of tubes designed for the track in Toulouse had arrived, and that the 320-metertest track system is projected to be operational later this year (Hyperloop TransportationTechnologies, 2018f). In parallel, the full-scale passenger pod is scheduled for delivery to thefacility later this summer, 2018 (Hyperloop Transportation Technologies, 2018f). As a nextstep, a full-scale 1 km long elevated track on pylons is projected to be completed one in 2019(Hyperloop Transportation Technologies, 2018f). If the longer track is completed, HTT couldstart to validate the predictions of the concept and possibly prove them feasible. And thisstage could be argued to bring hyperloop system towards a fulfillment of the maturity of TRL3 and possibly open up opportunities to start exploring higher maturities of TRL 4.

Besides this, HTT also announced the agreement with the leading real estate developer in AbuDhabi, Aldar Properties PJSC, this year to start the construction of a hyperloop system inthe Emirates (Hyperloop Transportation Technologies, 2018d). The project will begin witha ten-kilometer demonstration track that later will be expanded to a commercial hyperloopnetwork across the Emirates and beyond. However, as the construction already has begun inToulouse, the pod will most likely be assembled and optimized there during this year (2018).In the end, it comes down to how time consuming the construction of the system will be andonce it’s in place, the regional regulatory support can become a determinant for the progressionof a commercial hyperloop track. In such a scenario, the track in the Emirates can become animportant part for HTT to increase the maturity of hyperloop and bring the system to higherTRLs.

103

SpaceX

SpaceX has an approximately one mile long and six-foot outer diameter hyperloop test rig,where the company arranged a successful pod competition in 2015, with the purpose of accel-erating the development of functional pod prototypes and hence bring the hyperloop systemto higher TRLs. And SpaceX has announced that they will arrange a sequel hyperloop com-petition during the summer of 2018, with a prime focus on maximum speed. As the Podcompetition is restricted to the test rig of SpaceX, it will most likely continue to contribute tofulfilling the predictions of the system performances and hence prove their feasibility. Althoughthe test facility could potentially bring hyperloop to higher TRLs, it will unlikely be able tobring the hyperloop system to higher maturities than TRL 5. As this would require compo-nents to be integrated with supporting elements so that the system on a component-, sub-and system level can be reasonably simulated in a somewhat realistic environment (Mankins,1995). However, SpaceX and the pod competition can still constitute an important activity andprocess to validate the performances of the system that has been proclaimed by its investorsand hence fulfilling TRL 3 and potentially partly TRL 4.

Hardt

Hardt has announced the goal to start performing proof of technology tests in their 30-metertest tube, which is planned to be expanded to a 5 km full-scale test setup (Hardt, 2018c).This test facility will however most likely be utilized to fulfill the technical performances ofthe system, rather than constitute a fully functioning system in a relevant environment whichis required if the maturity of the system should be increased beyond TRL 4.

Besides this, Hardt in cooperation with Virgin Hyperloop One have approached the Dutchgovernment as a partner for building a test facility in the region, including filing a motionthat basically requests the government to investigate the financing of a high-speed test track(Hardt, 2018d). It seems like not only politicians, but also Dutch industry are willing to workfor this matter. And although no final decision has been made, a signed agreement could be ahuge step towards fulfilling TRL 3 of hyperloop and possibly bring the system to even higherTRLs.

Delft Hyperloop

Currently, Delft Hyperloop are working on the pod Delft Hyperloop II that will participatein the second SpaceX Pod competition under this summer, 2018. Hence, they will partlycontribute to bringing hyperloop to higher TRLs, but most likely restricted to a maturity ofTRL 3.

TransPod

Based on the findings from this thesis, it seems like TransPod do not currently have a physicaltest facility to validate the hyperloop technology. And hence they are left out, with respect toits more progressed competitors, of this analysis regarding bringing the hyperloop system tohigher TRLs.

104

General Agreements and Partnerships

Beyond the physical facilities, several agreements have been signed across the world between thehyperloop companies and different actors, including stakeholders of the Slovakian government,Abu Dhabi Department of Municipal Affairs and Transport, DP World, Roads and TransportAuthority of Dubai (RTA). These agreements concerns exploring the economic and technicalfeasibility of a potential hyperloop system. Although it could be argued to be a necessary steptowards increasing the TRLs of the technology, as it is essential for governments and localactors to be integrated in the process of building larger test tracks in relevant environments,the conceptual characteristics and the immaturity of the partnerships limits the capability toenhance the TRLs of the system in a short-term perspective.

However, the most recent agreements and in particular the one with UAE is moving closertowards actually increasing the TRLs. As it is focused on producing a comprehensive evaluationof human experience for hyperloop travel through showcasing conceptual interiors and exteriorsof the passenger pods (Jennings, 2017).

Regarding partnerships in Europe, Virgin Hyperloop One and Hardt most recently approachedthe Dutch government as a partner for building a test facility, and by that enhance the knowl-edge around the technology and the required infrastructure (Arup et al., 2017). In the reporttextit“Main report: Hyperloop in The Netherlands”, Arup et al. (2017) concludes Virgin Hy-perloop One to be the most suitable company for reaching higher TRLs as they currently havethe most elaborated test facility, DevLoop. Moreover, the report recommends Netherlands topursue getting a test facility. Once such a facility is in place the testing can be initiated, whilethe certification process and procedures are developed simultaneously (Arup et al., 2017). Witha future potential scale-up, expanding the facility to a minimum 40 km track length, testingand certification for commercial passenger transportation at velocities above 1000 kilometerper hour would be possible. If this is fulfilled, and the system is built in a relevant environment,a maturity of TRL 6 or higher could be achievable over time.

7.1.1 Summary

Today, several of the companies has or are currently building test facilities to validate thetechnology. Such facilities will constitute an important step in the process of validating thefulfillment of the systems’ proclaimed technical performances. And hence gain the system aconsensus of acceptance from investors and other actors involved in the process of building thesystem. This meanwhile regulations, safety standards and testing of minimum critical errorstolerated, can be exploited further to ensure the mode acceptable and secure to the public.The current development stage, corresponding TRL level and the next steps for each of thehyperloop companies have been summarized and presented in the Tabel 5.

105

Table 5: Summarize over the development stage, TRLs and next future steps for respectivelyhyperloop company

Company Facility TRL Next future steps

VirginHyperloopOne

500m test track(Devloop)

2-3 Demonstration track in India. 6-month feasibility study,followed by determining the public-private partnershipstructure and 2-3 years construction time.

HTT None 2 Currently building a 320m test track in Toulouse, oper-ational later this year. Expanded to a 1 km full-scalesystem projected complete in 2019. Intention to startconstructing a hyperloop system in the Emirates in 2018.

SpaceX 1,6km test rig 2-3 Upcoming Pod Competition in 2018, focused on topspeed.

Hardt 30m test track 2-3 Planned expansion to a 5 km full-scale test setup.

Delft Hy-perloop

None 2-3 Currently working on the pod that will participate in theSpaceX Pod Competition in 2018.

Transpod None - Left out of the analysis.

Although the maturity of the companies is set to a maturity of TRL 2-3, analysis indicates thatVirgin Hyperloop One is the company that has progressed the work furthest and is currentlywith their 500-meter test track (DevLoop) the company that is closest to bring the hyperloopconcept to a full TRL 3 maturity. However, as seen in Tabel 5 several of the hyperloopcompanies have aggressive predictions to expand or build new test tracks which potentiallycould reduce this gap already in a short-term perspective.

7.2 Characteristics of Diffusion

In this section, hyperloop will be analyzed according to the Characteristics of Diffusion frame-work presented in Section 2. This to develop an understanding of the competitive nature ofthe technology and to derive if and how the innovation can diffuse. The empirical materialgathered will be processed, analyzed and discussed with respect to the five characteristics, witha special emphasize on hyperloop in the context of Sweden. For the benefit of the reader, anover-viewing summary of the analysis is outlined and presented in the end of this section.

7.2.1 Relative Advantage

Hyperloop was presented to the world in the form of a white paper, stating that the conceptwould be superior to both air transport and highspeed rail in terms of cost, travel time, energyconsumption and safety (Musk, 2013). Each of these proposed relative advantages, together

106

with other relevant denominators of transportation, will be further analyzed and discussed inthis section. The analysis will start with looking in to speed and travel time, which is the mostprominent relative advantage talked about in the hyperloop discussion.

Speed and travel time

Speed and travel time is a competitive characteristic of hyperloop which is much emphasizedby both literature and interviews in the empirical study. As the estimated travel speed issurpassing all current transport alternatives on the market, hyperloop seemingly has a com-petitive advantage in relation to the other modes in this aspect. According to Hyperloop-One(2017) and the study outlined by Van Goeverden et al. (2017) hyperloop will, when fully de-veloped, reach speeds that are 10-15 times greater than traditional rail, 2-3 times faster thanHSR and maglev. Furthermore, Decker et al. (2017) concludes that hyperloop could be fasterthan conventional air travel, which have a cruise speed of roughly 925km/h. Though, it isimportant to acknowledge that hyperloop is yet to reach the envisioned speeds, and the abilityto do so is hence not proven.

However interesting the speed of hyperloop might be, it is rather the travel time the technologyenables that will have the largest impact on society. Both Researcher in Transport Planing(2018) and Representative of Hyperloop Sweden (2018) agrees that the main competitive char-acteristic off hyperloop is travel time. And the technology is expected to outperform otheralternatives on a large segment of short-haul aviation routes (Representative of Ramboll, 2018;Decker et al., 2017; Van Goeverden et al., 2017). As an example, Gonzalez-Gonzalez andNogues (2017) mentions the proposed route between Los Angeles and San Francisco, hyper-loop is expected to cover the 560km distance in 35 minutes, while its competitors HSR andaviation take 2 hours and 38 minutes and 1 hour and 25 minutes respectively. Furthermore, thesmaller pods proposed enables smoother and more ad-hoc travels as the waiting time is signifi-cantly reduced (Representative of Hyperloop Sweden, 2018). Concludingly, hyperloop will offersignificant improvements in this regard if the technology reaches the proposed performance.

By the high speeds and short travel times Researcher in Transport Planing (2018) arguesthat hyperloop will attract demand from flight, car and train travelers. Further, it can beargued that the segment of business travelers, which are more sensitive to travel time thanticket prices, likely will be attracted by hyperloop due to the reduced travel times (Researcherin Transport Planing, 2018). The most significant performance improvements accomplishedby hyperloop are arguably for city pairs located too far to conveniently travel by car andtoo short to efficiently travel by plane (Decker et al., 2017). This will perhaps be the mostimportant section of the market for the technology, at least in the early phase. This is alsothe segment identified as most sensitive for technology improvements according to aeronauticmarker research (Decker et al., 2017).

Hyperloop will entail significant changes to the structure of society and alter transportationin deep levels (Lawyers of Setterwalls, 2018). The improved travel times will likely have arange of benefits for society. Some examples of this is a new perspective on the real-estatemarket (Nikitas et al., 2017) as well as provide economic growth in terms of the amplificationof the regional labor market (Representative of Ramboll, 2018). Furthermore, hyperloop willlikely reduce the pressure on increasingly congested airports and flight routes (Opgenoord andCaplan, 2017). Researcher in Transport Planing (2018) however, argues that the shorter travel

107

times will generate an induced travel demand, as the increased connectivity will attract morepeople to travel.

In the context of Sweden, the main benefit from having a transport mode like hyperloop wouldbe a more geographically connected and cohesive country (Member of the Swedish Parliament(M), 2018). As Sweden has relatively small population, and the population is restricted tomainly a few larger cities, knowledge and expertise risks being geographically isolated dueto insufficient connections. Hyperloop could ease these issues by significantly reducing thetravel times between the cities (Representative of Ramboll, 2018). In addition, Member ofthe Swedish Parliament (M) (2018) sees great potential to create enhanced exchange with theneighboring countries.

To summarize, Sweden as a nation will likely gain a more cohesive and better-connected coun-try, as well as receive benefits from increased exchange with the other countries in the region,if hyperloop is built. Furthermore, hyperloop would change the perspective of where peoplelive and work, amplifying the regional labor markets as well as change the perspective of thereal-estate market. Or as described by Lawyers of Setterwalls (2018); It will change peoples’perspective on residing, working and living to the extent that the world will never be the sameas before the introduction of the technology.

Passenger capacity

As hyperloop is proposed as a new mode of mass transportation, passenger capacity is animportant relation to consider when outlining the competitive nature of the technology. Pas-senger capacity in this sense relates to the number of passengers that can be transported in eachdirection, and there are two features influencing this number. The first one is the frequencyof pods possible in the tubes and the second one concerns the number of passenger each podcan carry. The maximum frequency estimated for hyperloop lays between 30 (Werner et al.,2016) and 40 (Mack, 2017) seconds per lane depending on the pod size. Which together with28 (Musk, 2013) to 38 (Mack, 2017) passengers per pod gives a maximum number of passengerper day between 80 640 to 82 080 per lane. This is significantly lower than the maximumcapacity reached with HSR which has the ability to transport roughly 288 000 passengers perday and track (Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2012). In comparison to aircraft carriers however, whichin Sweden has an average capacity of 89.2 passengers per plane (Trafik Analys, 2018), this fig-ure entails that one single direction hyperloop tube equals 920 planes per day, or 1 840 planesper day for a two-direction system. Hyperloops passenger capacity can further be adopted tofit the specific market demand, without significant cost variation, by altering the size of thepods (Decker et al., 2017).

Altogether, it can be argued that the capacity is a drawback in the comparative competitive-ness to HSR. However, Sweden has a relatively small population and lower passenger flowsthan other countries with higher population density. Hence, the capacity achieved by hyper-loop would likely be sufficient and better suited for Sweden than other regions. And speedperformance wise it is perhaps more reasonable to compare hyperloop to air travel than HSR,and in that relation hyperloops capacity could be considered an advantage.

108

Environmental sustainability

A key determiner when it comes to transformational pressure in the transport sector todayis the aspect of environmental sustainability. And the concern for environmental effects fromtransportation will most likely continue to be a prominent part in the discussion in the future(Member of the Swedish Parliament (M), 2018). More sustainable travel alternatives arerequired and hence, this will be an important characteristic for the diffusion of new transportalternatives such as hyperloop. Particularly interesting are alternatives that can compete withaviation, while at the same time offer low environmental implications (Head of Technology andRailway at ST-Agency, 2018).

Hyperloop is expected to provide revolutionary benefits regarding environmental sustainability.Not only due to the developers’ dedication towards using green power sources, but also becauseof the relatively low energy consumption predicted for the system (Krausz and Honold, 2016).Hyperloop achieve a relatively low energy consumption by low friction with the track, low airresistance and an electric propulsion system (Van Goeverden et al., 2017). And through thisit is predicted that the technology will be about 2-3 times more energy efficient than HSR and3-6 times more efficient than air transport (Van Goeverden et al., 2017). Especially significantis the relation to air transport, which is highly energy consuming and runs on fossil fuels.Having a competitive alternative to air travel will be a highly important step towards a moresustainable transport sector.

In addition to the more efficient operations, hyperloop is dedicated to using sustainable powersources. And especially the utilization of solar power. Calculations show that, by installingsolar panels on the tubes, hyperloop will produce more energy than it consumes, delivering apower surplus back to the power network (Musk, 2013). Worth mentioning is however thatthese estimates are based on the beneficial solar conditions of California, and the efficiency ofsolar panels in other regions might be significantly less beneficial. However, as the systems areexpected to have a significantly lower consumption than contemporary modes, hyperloop isstill expected be an environmentally viable alternative, even without solar panels. Especiallyconsidering that the technology could outperform domestic flights (Representative of Ramboll,2018).

Another important aspect of environmental sustainability is noise pollution. The combinationof elevated pods and low-pressure environment means that practically no vibrations are trans-ferred between the pods and the tubes (Van Goeverden et al., 2017). The tube itself prohibitsnoise from being transferred to the outside environment, and tube design can be adjusted to re-duce this even further (Werner et al., 2016). Noise pollution is thereof a major difference whencomparing to air and rail transport, whom emits significant noise levels to their surroundings.Hyperloop will most likely radiate lower sound levels, and the risk of reaching damaging levelscan be considered low.

Considering these aspects, it can be argued that hyperloop has a strong position in relation toother modes of transportation when it comes to environmental sustainability. And the tech-nology could become an important step towards a more sustainable and fossil fuel independenttransport sector. Especially in regions where solar panels are viable (Krausz and Honold,2016).

109

Passenger comfort

Passenger comfort is one of the determining factors in customers choice of transportation. Itis therefor significant for all alternatives wanting to attract passengers, hyperloop included.However, the conceptual state of the technology gives little insight to the comfort levels hyper-loop will have once fully developed. The companies developing hyperloop aims at achievingcomparable comfort levels as conventional air travel in terms of acceleration and vibrations(Arup et al., 2017). However, as these parameters are related to velocity, this could be alimiting factor for the performance of hyperloop, especially in curves. More thorough testingand higher technology readiness levels needs to be reached before accurate conclusions aboutpassenger comfort can be presented.

The mental barrier of traveling in closed tubes at sonic speeds is however a potential challengefor hyperloop. This could hinder the acceptance for the technology and hence needs to betaken under consideration. It seems to be acknowledged by several of the developing com-panies whom have presented solutions to reduce the feeling of containment. Amongst others,HTT suggests installing augmented windows, displaying a preferred environment together withinformation about the trip to the passengers (Hyperloop Transportation Technologies, 2018a).Such solutions could reduce mental discomfort from riding in the windowless pods and willlikely be required to gain acceptance from the majority.

Overall it is identified that hyperloops technology state hinders a thorough analysis of passengercomfort. Some critical aspects in the relation between technology and comfort levels can berecognized and needs to be addressed by the developers. However, it is to early to considerpassenger comfort to be a relative advantage or disadvantage at this point.

Safety

Safety is a crucial element for all types of transportation and this concerns not only the safetyfor the people inside the travel mode but also the outside environment. Concerning peopleand environment outside the tubes, hyperloop arguably pose very few risks. The system isa closed environment, where all external interaction, such as other forms of transportation,humans and direct environment, is prevented. It could thereof be contended that hyperloophas an advantage in relation to air, road and rail transport (Van Goeverden et al., 2017).

As an example, Werner et al. (2016) presented in his analysis of a proposed hyperloop for frightin Northern Germany that the system would, by reducing the amount of trucks operating on theroads, prohibit 922-1660 accidents annually. Similar arguments could be made for hyperloopintended for passenger transport, reducing the number of cars on the roads. In relation toaviation, hyperloops ground level operations together with the fact that the system does notrun on hazardous ignitable liquids should make the technology less dangerous (Lawyers ofSetterwalls, 2018). And as air travel is widely accepted today, there is no reason for hyperloopto be deemed to unsafe for commercial practice (Lawyers of Setterwalls, 2018).

Another benefit with hyperloops controlled and closed operating environment is that all partssensitive to external factors will be located inside the tubes. Hence making the technologymore robust and reliable that contemporary modes of transportation. A major part of delays,accidents and disturbance today are due to implications such as collisions with wild animals,

110

bad weather or fallen trees, especially in countries with a climate like Sweden (Representativeof Ramboll, 2018). And these implications will be obviated in the hyperloop case, reducingthe probability of delays and disturbance.

A substantial part of accidents in transportation today is caused by human errors. And ashyperloop is intended to be a fully automated system, with minimized human interaction, it isexpected that these type of accidents will be significantly less frequently occurring in relationto the contemporary alternatives (Werner et al., 2016; Van Goeverden et al., 2017). This canbe considered to increase the level of safety for hyperloop, and at the same time increase thereliability of the technology.

There is however a safety concern regarding hyperloop that can be identified, namely criticalpressure failure. Such failures could potentially have catastrophic consequences since the podsinside the tube would collide with an airwall. Critical pressure failure could occur as the resultof a human or technical error, or perhaps more likely from an act of terror (Researcher inTransport Planing, 2018). Having exposed tubes entails a security concern as they can beaccessed by people outside Head of Technology and Railway at ST-Agency (2018). This couldbe solved by having the tubes under ground (Lawyers of Setterwalls, 2018), although this likelywill be more expensive. If hyperloop are to be built above ground however, this matter mustbe sufficiently solved technically to make acceptable for commercial practice and solving thiswill likely be very difficult.

To summarize it can be concluded that hyperloop has a relative advantage in relation to con-temporary modes of transportation in some respects, while other features is could be consideredmore critical. The closed hyperloop system diminish the risks for people and environment out-side the system, while at the same time protecting the vital components of the system itselffrom outside influences. Furthermore, the automated nature of operations proposed for thetechnology decrease the risk and consequences of human errors. All these aspects can be con-sidered to increase the safety of the system and at the same time make it more reliable. Thereis however a concern for acts of terror and critical failure that could have more significantconsequences for hyperloop than other modes.

Costs

When discussing the construction and competitiveness of infrastructure it is impossible not toconsider in the cost aspect. This is often the focus of the debate and is weighted against poten-tial future socio-economic benefits received from the system. Hence this aspect is necessary toanalyze in the hyperloop case. And as the attention surrounding building new infrastructuretoday is often directed towards HSR, it is interesting to compare the cost aspects of hyperloopwith this technology.

When analyzing the material gathered the cost estimates for building hyperloop varies greatly.Some sources suggest that hyperloop will be cheaper to build than conventional HSR whileothers suggest that it is more reasonable to assume that the construction will reach levelssimilar to maglev. Representative of Hyperloop Sweden (2018) and Representative of Ramboll(2018) argues that the simplicity of hyperloops infrastructure design motivates estimates in therange of half to equal the cost of conventional HSR. Which is further supported by the estimatespresented in the hyperloop white paper, proposing that the cost of building a hyperloop route

111

between Los Angeles and San Francisco would be significantly less expensive than the HSRcompetitor (Musk, 2013). Tunneling is also considered to be significantly less expensive forhyperloop due to the smaller diameter required in relation to conventional rail and road (Musk,2013; Representative of Ramboll, 2018). Van Goeverden et al. (2017) agrees with this picture,presenting that the cost of a double tube hyperloop tunnel could be in the magnitude of onesingle-track rail tunnel.

The discussion about the final cost of hyperloop is however still prominent, where skepticsquestion the reliability of the estimates presented. There is still a lot of ambiguity regardingtechnical solutions, and how expensive these solutions will end up is very difficult to predict.Researcher in Transport Planing (2018) believes it possible that hyperloop underestimates thedifficulty of solving the technical issues, which could lead to a more expensive final product.In addition, Professor in Rail Vehicle Dynamics (2018) is skeptical that the technology will becheaper than HSR, and Van Goeverden et al. (2017) perceives it as more likely that hyperloopwill reach costs in the magnitude of maglev rather than HSR, which is about double the costpresented in the white paper. Moreover, Gonzalez-Gonzalez and Nogues (2017) identifies thatthe cost estimates presented for the routes Stockholm – Helsinki and Dubai – Abu Dhabi arewell above HSR and more aligned with maglev. However, it should be mentioned that boththese routes include sub-sea sections which likely drives up the costs. And in addition to this,Arup et al. (2017) concludes that there is a 60-80% difference in the estimated cost of tubesproposed by Virgin Hyperloop One and Hardt.

Related to the maintenance and operating costs there seems to be more consensus than forthe building. As hyperloop has no physical contact between track and pods, together withthe closed environment minimizing weather tare, the maintenance costs for the technology isexpected to be significantly lower than for conventional rail (Decker et al., 2017). Further, itis identified that hyperloops operational costs are negatively related to velocity, apart fromenergy consumption, giving the technology comparatively low operational costs in relation toother modes of transportation (Van Goeverden et al., 2017). Representative of HyperloopSweden (2018) argues that the operational and maintenance costs for hyperloop to be a tenthof the levels seen for HSR.

High initial costs can be motivated by low lifetime costs and increased socio-economic benefits,as explained by Researcher in Transport Planing (2018), whom acknowledge that hyperloopwill have an advantage if it can be proven that the technology scores better in this regard.However, speculating that if the cost increase by too much, hyperloop will not be competitiveto the current modes of transportation. Barrier effects from large previous investments incontemporary infrastructure makes it harder to adopt new technologies. And even if a decisionis made, obtaining a covering network will be extremely expensive. As mentioned by Professorin Rail Vehicle Dynamics (2018) it will probably be necessary for hyperloop to reach a traveltime performance comparable with air travel, while at the same time be equivalent cost wisewith HSR to gain acceptance. The cost aspect will however be especially important, as itoften becomes the focus of the discussion. If hyperloop manage to become relatively cheap,the technology would have a considerable financial advantage, and in such a scenario, therewill be a demand for the technology.

To summarize it is hard to, at this point, determine if hyperloop has a financial advantageor disadvantage in the relation with other alternatives. The technology is still surrounded by

112

significant uncertainties that could drive up the costs, and as no full-scale system is in place todate, all figures are based on assumptions. It seems however fairly certain that hyperloop willpossess a relative advantage in terms of operational and maintenance costs due to the proposedtechnological design. It could further be argued that the technology has the ability to offermore significant socio-economic benefits than contemporary modes, which could compensatea higher infrastructure investment.

7.2.2 Compatibility

The second characteristic of diffusion is compatibility which refers to how well the innovationfits together with existing technology and technological standards, and how well the innovationcorresponds with existing values, norms, experience and needs of the potential adopters. Tothoroughly analyze hyperloop in this context, four categories have been outlined. Starting withhow well the technology fits with other infrastructure, the analyze moves forward consideringaspects related to public administrations, companies, societal benefits, funding and norms.Subsequent to this, a summary of the overall compatibility of hyperloop will be presented anddiscussed.

Infrastructure

As the hyperloop concept entails a completely new type of infrastructure, the aspect of com-patibility with the existing infrastructure types needs to be considered. The nature of theproposed concept, with low pressure and elevated pods, means that no current transport al-ternatives can be used on the new structure. Hence, the new system will be limited to onlyhyperloop pods. Professor in Rail Vehicle Dynamics (2018) acknowledge that there are clearboundary effects in this regard and as hyperloop requires new and incompatible infrastructure,the benefits necessary to compensate for this must be substantial.

The conventional infrastructure systems are already in place and the stations are built for thistechnology. Therefore, it is necessary for hyperloop to, as described by Representative of FSlinks (2018), not only focus on the development of new technology, but also on finding ways ofintegrating the technology with the existing infrastructure network. There are several possibleconfigurations for how the hyperloop infrastructure should be built. And propositions forunderground, on ground or elevated above ground on pylons have been put forward. Regardingthe elevated alternative, Werner et al. (2016) argues that this would allow for free passageunderneath the structure, limiting the effects on existing infrastructure. Deputy ResearchDirector at VTI (2018) however questions the visual integration of this alternative, which likelywill be a barrier. Further underlined is that tubes above and on ground will be challengingto integrate with current infrastructure, thus the only viable alternative could be buildinghyperloop in tunnels (Representative of Ramboll, 2018). This view is further supported byLawyers of Setterwalls (2018), claiming that an underground system is preferable as it wouldincrease safety, decrease effects from weather as well as enable entering the cities inner circles(Lawyers of Setterwalls, 2018). The latter aspect is especially emphasized as the attractivenessof hyperloop is dependent on having stations in the city centers and close to other transportnodes, enabling swift shifts between transport modes.

113

Dominant Actors

A subsequent aspect related to the compatibility of new technologies, and especially whenit comes to large infrastructure questions, is how well the innovation fits with the dominantactors on the market on which it is introduced. As this paper primarily focus on hyperloopin the Swedish context, the compatibility will be focused on the Swedish private and publicenvironment. The government authority responsible for maintaining the current infrastruc-ture in Sweden is the Swedish Transport Administration (ST-Administration). The authoritykeeps track of the technical development around the world, although they lack resources andmodels for handling new disruptive technologies such as hyperloop (Senior Adviser at ST-Administration, 2018). Further, it can be argued that they lack organizational capabilities forhandling innovations outside the four current modes of transport (Air, Rail, Road and Sea)(Representative of FS links, 2018). A general lack of institutional channels, together withthe limited innovational drive of public administrations, hinders the ST-Administration fromfollowing up on and pursuing new infrastructure innovations.

In Sweden it is the Swedish Transport Agency (ST-Agency) whom are responsible for providingrules and regulations for transport within Sweden. The agency has been in contact withrepresentatives from one of the hyperloop companies regarding initiation of a regulatory processof hyperloop (Head of Technology and Railway at ST-Agency, 2018). However, as the ST-Agency is a governmental authority, such endeavor needs to fit in to the formulated mandate.This means that the agency, with the current formulation, only are allowed to look in to andwork with the existing types of transportation. Hence, technologies need to be fitted intoone of the existing descriptions, and new disruptive innovations that are dissimilar becomesa problem. This was the case with hyperloop, the ST-Agency realized that hyperloop wasincompatible with the current transport alternatives and that they needed approval from theMinistry of Enterprise and Innovation to pursue the technology (Head of Technology andRailway at ST-Agency, 2018).

However, legislations for railway and air transport exists today, and the delineation of regu-lations for hyperloop will most likely adapt certain aspects from both. Further, Lawyers ofSetterwalls (2018) cannot see any major implications with adapting the railway regulation tohyperloop. And the ST-Agency did conclude that the most compatible section for hyperloopwithin the agency was the railway department, and more specifically the tramway regulation.However, this regulation is limited to only local passenger transportation, which is unlikely thecase for a hyperloop system (Head of Technology and Railway at ST-Agency, 2018). If thislimitation is lifted however, it will open a possible opportunity for hyperloop. And since theST-Agency has experience from regulating both air and rail transport, this will likely ease theprocess of developing a regulatory framework for the technology.

On the government level it can be identified that the actors responsible for transport andinfrastructure questions in Sweden tend to be bias to specific solutions, discarding alternativetechnologies (Member of the Swedish Parliament (M), 2018). A reason for this could be thatthere is a significant political risk involved in pursuing new technologies that are radicallydifferent to the existing norms and standards. Or alternatively that the technology does notcorrespond with the values and experience of the decisionmakers. The government plays animportant role in promoting new innovative solutions in society and can either promote orinhibit the diffusion of new technology. Hence, gaining their acceptance will be important for

114

hyperloop.

It can however be identified that there is a distinct match between Swedish policy and hyper-loop. Sweden aims to be a country for future mobility and wants to drive innovation forward,and hyperloop want to find a country that is willing to bet on the technology. Further, Swe-den proclaims to aim on diving the development of climate friendly transport alternatives,which hyperloop potentially will become (Lawyers of Setterwalls, 2018). In addition, it can beacknowledged that the high regulatory standards in the Nordic region is attractive for hyper-loop companies, as realizing the technology in this region would give the concept considerablecredibility in a global perspective (Lawyers of Setterwalls, 2018).

Sweden has historically been successful in developing and diffusing new technologies. However,a common aspect in these cases is that there have been companies and organizations compatiblewith the technology in question Deputy Research Director at VTI (2018). Such industryrelations could arguably be harder to find for hyperloop, however both Representative ofRamboll (2018) and Representative of Hyperloop Sweden (2018) identifies that there are clearsynergy effects to obtain for Swedish companies choosing to partake in the development ofhyperloop. Further, Sweden have a quiet substantial vehicle and steal industry, which togetherwith the many high-tech-oriented companies in the country could benefit greatly from bothdeveloping and building the technology. There is a lot to gain from being first, as the firstcompany to realize the technology will have knowledge and experience that no others have.And hence, it would open opportunities for global sales (Lawyers of Setterwalls, 2018).

Socio-economic Benefits and Funding of Development

A major part of investment discussions related to infrastructure concerns the potential socio-economic benefits received in the future from building the system. And that these benefitsare a key determinant for implementation decisions of new technology is emphasized by bothDeputy Research Director at VTI (2018) and Professor in Transport Economics (2018). Mod-els for calculating this type of societal benefits exists for the current modes of transportation.However, as hyperloop is a completely new system, deciding the appropriate model and deter-mining if that model is applicable could be difficult (Professor in Transport Economics, 2018).Further, Representative of FS links (2018) argues that none of the current models cover thewider socio-economic benefits achieved by hyperloops performance. It can therefore be arguedthat hyperloop has limited compatibility to the current methods for calculating socio-economicbenefits.

Related to governmental subsidies for development, a sub-optimal balance can be identifiedin the Nordic region (Representative of FS links, 2018). The major part of the budget isdirected towards existing, conservative businesses while a small part is distributed to emergingtechnologies. It is therefore harder to obtain subsidies for hyperloop than for conventionaltechnologies. Furthermore, the research funding for transportation in Sweden is significantlyheavy on road vehicles, while the other modes receive almost trivial resources in comparison(Deputy Research Director at VTI, 2018). And in this environment, it is difficult to fit in anew technology, consequently making it hard to attract research funding for hyperloop.

115

Norms

Swedish people are in general relatively good at accepting and adopting new technology oncethey reach the market. It seems that people in Sweden have a relatively open mindset fornew solutions, and once the social norms are met, the technology commonly gains acceptancefrom the public (Representative of Ramboll, 2018). It should however be acknowledged thathyperloop would require large societal changes, both in terms of societal life and human behav-ior. It is therefore likely that the technology could encounter substantial resistance, especiallyas these changes are very hard to predict (Senior Adviser at ST-Administration, 2018). His-torically, similar resistance and skeptical opinions that hyperloop likely will come across, havebeen met and conquered in the early phases of introducing all current modes of transportation.However, the society of today might be more eager to accept new technical solutions than itwas a hundred years ago.

It can be argued that the marketing efforts deployed for hyperloop in Sweden has been some-what misdirected to the cultural context in the country. While a futuristic and hyped effortsmight be well received in the US, people in the Nordic region are generally more skeptical andwant to feel, try and see that it actually works to be convinced (Lawyers of Setterwalls, 2018).Future efforts should take this under consideration, adapting the marketing efforts after theSwedish culture to attract the interest from Swedish population more efficiently.

One of the critical challenges in terms of gaining acceptance for hyperloop is the claustrophobicperception of traveling in a closed capsule, in a closed tube. This can be considered conflictingwith the existing norms and values, even if some similarities with traveling in tunnels could beargued for. And even if this aspect gain acceptance over time, it will likely prolong the processof accepting the technology.

7.2.3 Complexity

The process of adoption and diffusion is affected by the level of complexity, or perceivedcomplexity of the innovations. In other words, diffusion is influenced negatively the harderit is for potential adopters to understand, learn and use the innovation (Sonnenwald et al.,2001; Tidd and Bessant, 2009). As mentioned previously, it can be argued that hyperloop hasthe potential to transform the transport market by connecting regions in a superior way andsignificantly enhancing the efficiency of the infrastructure network. However, such change ofcourse comes with complex and difficult issues to handle. And in this context, the complexityof hyperloop and the Swedish perspective of the technology will be analyzed and discussed.

Regarding the technical design of hyperloop, it can be argued that the pipe infrastructure hasa relatively low complexity (Representative of Ramboll, 2018; Representative of HyperloopSweden, 2018). However, designing the hyperloop stations will be significantly more complexthan for HSR, because of the low pressure operating environment (Van Goeverden et al.,2017). This factor will likely drive up the cost of the stations and could potentially be aknowledge barrier for the technology. Furthermore, it can be identified that there still is alot of questions regarding how to integrate hyperloop, and its infrastructure, with the existingnetwork. Another affecting aspect of hyperloop that delay the understanding and knowledgeabout the technology and concept is the limited insight available to the public about thetechnical processes and solutions. Professor in Rail Vehicle Dynamics (2018) agues it to be

116

very hard to gain a comprehensive understanding of how far the development have reachedand the solutions found to the engineering difficulties encountered.

The complexity of hyperloop can further be acknowledged to pose as a barrier for gainingacceptance for the technology. As expressed by Lawyers of Setterwalls (2018), it takes timeto fully comprehend the concept and as hyperloop is intended for transport, and passengertransport in particular, obtaining general acceptance from the public could prove significantlydifficult. The process of changing peoples understanding of hyperloop from being an ideathat looks good on paper, to making them realize that it can become a reality and the greatbenefits that would come with it takes time (Lawyers of Setterwalls, 2018). As mentioned inthe Compatibility analysis, travelers need to be convinced that the common norms of transport(e.g safety, evacuation, collisions etc.) are fulfilled, and concerns regarding these aspects willlikely hinder the diffusion of hyperloop (Head of Technology and Railway at ST-Agency, 2018;Lawyers of Setterwalls, 2018). Furthermore, there is limited knowledge of how travelers willvalue the aspect of traveling in closed capsules, in closed tubes, and this could depreciate theadoption rate (Representative of FS links, 2018).

The Swedish perspective

It is extremely difficult to introduce new technological solutions for infrastructure in Sweden.And the combination of technology state, market acceptance and the path dependence, togetherwith the fact that hyperloop is a completely new way of traveling, will likely increases theboundaries even further (Senior Adviser at ST-Administration, 2018). Questions regardingwhat social effects hyperloop will have, as well as concerns related to how to integrate thetechnology with existing infrastructure could inflict psychological counter forces. Looking atthe example of electrified roads, which arguably impose significantly less complex challengesthan hyperloop, Senior Adviser at ST-Administration (2018) identifies that the process ofgaining acceptance for this technology has proven extremely difficult. The magnitude of changenecessary for hyperloop makes realizing the technology one of the most challenging endeavorimaginable, although the potential benefits that can be achieved could speed up the process.

The hyperloop concept has been received with greater curiosity and enthusiasm in Norway andFinland when comparing to Sweden (Representative of Ramboll, 2018). A potential reason forthe skeptical treatment in Sweden could be that the concept is perceived as futuristic, especiallyif intended for passenger transport. Hyperloop involves risk taking in both a societal andhumancentric perspective which is not fully mastered (Lawyers of Setterwalls, 2018).

Many historical parallels can be drawn with the difficulty of persuading the public about newinnovations. As an example, the concept of making bank errands and online purchases wouldhave been called crazy not to long ago (Representative of Ramboll, 2018). And similaritiescan be identified to when airplanes and cars were introduced, which initially were met withgreat skepticism (Lawyers of Setterwalls, 2018). Similar lack of vision can be identified fordisruptive systems such as hyperloop (Representative of Ramboll, 2018). And Senior Adviserat ST-Administration (2018) argues that the possibilities to introduce hyperloop in the freightsegment is higher as it arguably is less complex to envision, at least in the early stages.

A general lack of understanding and knowledge about hyperloop in Sweden can be observed,and hence there is a need for conscious efforts targeted towards raising awareness about the

117

technology. And as hyperloop implies a new mode of transportation and infrastructure, itis arguably especially important to raise awareness amongst the Swedish politicians and gov-ernmental authorities. However, taking something from an exciting idea to making peopleunderstand that it actually could work require substantial funding. And funding is a matterof risk, something that Sweden currently seems unwilling to take on (Lawyers of Setterwalls,2018). Representative of Ramboll (2018) emphasize that increased cooperation and initiativesare necessary to make the politicians more responsive in the matter. And Member of theSwedish Parliament (M) (2018) argues that the awareness of the technology could be increasedthrough seminars or other informative activities. An alternative strategy to put pressure onthe government about the topic is to raise the publics knowledge and interest. Several differentchannels could be utilized for this purpose, such as using conventional and social media, or byengaging schools and universities. Together this will be an important part in raising cognizanceof the hyperloop development and concept, which could build public opinion.

A subsequent effect from the lack of knowledge about hyperloop is that there is limited, if any,research currently being rendered on the subject in Sweden. Member of the Swedish Parliament(M) (2018) points out that while the government do not control individual research projects,they frequently promote specific research areas. Hyperloop could potentially be promoted inthis way, however the lack of knowledge hinders such initiatives. Another potential reasonfor the absence of hyperloop research in Sweden could be that companies or industries havenot yet realized how they can contribute and benefit from the technology (Deputy ResearchDirector at VTI, 2018). Representative of Ramboll (2018) recognize the necessity of settingup a common forum where businesses and industries can discuss with hyperloop how theycan contribute to the process of completing the technology. As of now it likely comes downto that entrepreneurial and genuinely interested researchers will be required to push throughinitiatives for hyperloop research in Sweden.

Realizing a full-scale test track is the most important thing for hyperloop, to be able to showthat the technology works. As it often is necessary to see the technology to fully grasp it andto build belief that it is real (Lawyers of Setterwalls, 2018). There is a wide range of aspectsthat needs to be addressed in order for hyperloop to become an alternative in Sweden. Sincethe technology is new and disruptive this will require new methods for insurance, permits andfunding as well as necessitate maturity and susceptibility amongst the population of travelers(Representative of Hyperloop Sweden, 2018). Hyperloop has not been subjected to preparatorywork and regulations does not exist. Hence, substantial practical work will be required, suchas developing permissions and determining what government authority that should handle thetransport mode (Lawyers of Setterwalls, 2018). However, the process of solving these aspectswould be significantly difficult today as no full-scale system exist, as it enables observing andtesting the system. And as described by Lawyers of Setterwalls (2018), none of the barriersseems impossible to overcome, even if it should be acknowledged that substantial efforts willbe needed to realize the technology.

7.2.4 Observability

The results of an innovation, and especially how visible these results are to potential adopters,is conceptualized as observability in innovation diffusion theory. More explicitly, observabilityconcerns the degree of which the results and consequences of an innovation are visible toothers (Karakaya, 2015; Tidd and Bessant, 2009). And a high observability is associated with

118

increased probability of rapid diffusion (Tornatzky and Klein, 1982). Hyperloop’s performancepotential is expected to be superior to both air transport and highspeed rail in terms ofcost, travel time, energy consumption and safety (Musk, 2013). And if the technology isrealized, reaching the envisioned performance levels, this would entail significant effects on thewhole transport market of today. To map out and analyze the observability of these proposedperformance improvements, the two categories society and individual have been outlined.

Society

There seems to be consensus regarding that hyperloop would generate substantial socio-economic benefits if realized, however the visibility of these effects could be limited due torestricted compatibility between hyperloop and the socio-economic models used today. Someexample of domestic and cross-border benefits identified for the hyperloop system are increasedsharing, utilization and accessibility to services like hospitals and expensive lab equipment, andincreased attractiveness of real-estates outside the urban areas (Representative of Ramboll,2018). In addition, hyperloop entails huge potential in terms of efficiency, environmental sus-tainability and financial benefits (Senior Adviser at ST-Administration, 2018). Where thesuperior environmental aspect of hyperloop could be seen as especially important, howeverdifficult to observe.

The arguably most observable societal effects of building a hyperloop system would be a betterconnected and more cohesive community, with enhanced exchange, as the capability of mobilitywould be significantly improved (Member of the Swedish Parliament (M), 2018). Further,hyperloop is identified to have the ability constitute improvements and economic growth inthe form of amplification of the regional labor markets. The Swedish transport system of today,together with the widely distributed population, risks geographically isolating knowledge andexpertise, effects that could be decreased by hyperloop (Representative of Ramboll, 2018).Other recognizable effects achievable with hyperloop is the opportunity to solve the lack ofresidences in the larger cities in a climate smart way. As well as competitive synergy effectsfor companies involved in bringing the technology to market, effects that could give futureadvantages to Swedish industry.

However, as hyperloop is a new form of transportation, and as many of the potential results andconsequences are challenging to visualize, the resistance has so far remained high in Sweden(Representative of FS links, 2018). This will likely pose significant future challenges as theinfrastructure discussion is heavily focused on socio-economic benefits, and the ability to makethe societal benefits observable for diction makers is determining for potential adoption.

Individual

On the individual level, looking at the perspective of potential travelers, the larges benefitsachieved by hyperloop is likely reduced travel times and more on demand travel alternative.The high speeds projected for the system will substantially reduce the travel time for passen-gers, making it possible to travel longer distances in the same quantities of time, changing theconcept of distance as perceived today (Arup et al., 2017). As pointed out by Deputy ResearchDirector at VTI (2018) and Researcher in Transport Planing (2018), there is a limitation inpeople’s acceptance for daily time for travel, which entails that hyperloop could increase the

119

geographical circle in which the population can accept to work and live. This is further sup-ported by the small pods, allowing reduced waiting times for passengers as well as a moread-hoc, on demand solution (Representative of Hyperloop Sweden, 2018; Mack, 2017). It canhence be argued that hyperloop would increase the accessibility, connectivity and availabilityfor travelers, both in terms of geographical regions and to the mode itself. And each of theseaspects can be considered highly observable.

Demand for travel commonly comes from imperfections in society. It is a so called indirectdemand and derives from the need to achieve something else (Representative of FS links, 2018).In the case of hyperloop, the increased connectivity enables people to travel longer distancesfor purposes such as work, living, healthcare, shopping etc. driving demand for the technology.And the ability to travel more freely will further impact competence as the exchange betweencompanies and environments could be increased.

A subsequent observable characteristic is the fully automated system together with the closedoperating environment. These two features will likely make hyperloop more reliable as well asincrease its safety. The fully automated operations reduce the risk of human errors, which isthe cause behind many of the implications with current travel modes (Werner et al., 2016;VanGoeverden et al., 2017). The closed operating environment protects the sensitive componentsfrom external interaction, minimizing potential risks for people and environment outside thetubes as well as significantly reducing the potential for delays and disturbance in the dailyoperations. Consequently, it can be identified that hyperloop could be a more robust mode oftransportation in comparison to existing modes, and that it has potential benefits in terms ofsafety, which is aligned with Sweden’s vision of zero fatalities in the transport system.

7.2.5 Trialability

The final characteristic associated with the rate of diffusion according to the theories of EverettM. Rogers is trialability. And trialability in this context is defined as the degree of which aninnovation may be experimented with on a limited basis (Karakaya, 2015; Sonnenwald et al.,2001). Trialability is considered positively related to adoption as the uncertainty amongst thepotential adopters can be reduced if the innovation that can be tried and tested (Tidd andBessant, 2009; Tornatzky and Klein, 1982).

The nature of hyperloop as an innovation, being a new mode of transportation which requirea new type infrastructure, limits the opportunities for potential adopters to try the systemin advance. It is of course possible; however, it would entail building a test track, whichtakes substantial investments and commitment. The risks and effort associated with testinghyperloop can hence be considered significant, which could have negative effects on adoptionaccording to Sonnenwald et al. (2001).

The mere level of how difficult it is to test the technology can be seen by the simple fact thatno full-scale system exists anywhere in the world to date. The most advanced test facility inplace is to short, and a possible reason to why this has not been expanded is the tremendouscosts associated with it. Although, the suboptimal location of the current test track couldalso affect the decision to wait with the expansion (Lawyers of Setterwalls, 2018). Once afull-scale system is in place, either as a test facility or commercial facility, it would enablepotential adopters to visit, try and investigate the system, which arguably increase the level

120

of trialability of the technology.

Building a test facility could however be motivated, even if it necessitates substantial in-vestments. As presented by Arup et al. (2017) it can be considered justified to construct ahyperloop test track as it would give enhanced strategic knowledge, attract foreign investmentsas well as improve the innovation-position of the region. And if the technology feasibility andfunctionality is proven, it would bring potential first-mover advantages. The first companies torealize the technology will have significant competitive knowledge and experience which latercan be capitalized on as global sales (Lawyers of Setterwalls, 2018).

The Nordic region has historically been successful in developing and diffusing new technologies,which could be considered as a strength if a hyperloop initiative becomes relevant Member ofthe Swedish Parliament (M) (2018). It can further be argued that Sweden has a historyof being competitive is in testing and experimenting with new technology (Deputy ResearchDirector at VTI, 2018). The potential synergy effects for companies involved in the early stagesof development is acknowledged by (Member of the Swedish Parliament (M), 2018), whomargues that it could be beneficial for the competitiveness Swedish industry. A view whichaccording to Lawyers of Setterwalls (2018) is further supported by the industry companies inSweden. However, the trialability seems especially important in the Nordic countries, as it canbe distinguished that there is a generally more withdrawn and skeptical approach to disruptiveinnovations, especially in the early stages of development. People in Sweden commonly wantto feel, try and see concrete evidence of functionality to be convinced, and are commonlyunimpressed with futuristic marketing efforts (Lawyers of Setterwalls, 2018).

7.2.6 Summary

In this section a summary of the Characteristics of Diffusion analysis will be presented anddiscussed. This to give the reader an overview of the main takeaways and implications ofthe five characteristics respectively. As presented below in Table 6 it can, from the analysis,be distinguished that hyperloop has a high Relative advantage and Complexity while theCompatibility and Trialability of the technology can be considered low. The final characteristic,Observability, can be considered to be medium as the observability of hyperloop’s effects isconstrained by the lack of appropriate models. Further, the table includes the theoreticalcorrelation between the different characteristics and innovations rate of diffusion. This table isfurther complemented by a more thorough summary of each characteristic individually, whichcan be read below.

121

Table 6: Summarizing table of hyperloops performance in relation to the five characteristicsof diffusion.

Characteristic Performance Correlation

Relative Advantage High Positive

Compatibility Low Positive

Complexity High Negative

Observability Medium Positive

Trialability Low Positive

Relative Advantage

Through this analysis it was identified that hyperloop could have clear advantages in terms ofspeed and travel time. The technology is significantly faster than conventional rail alternativesand have the ability to outperform commercial aircrafts. This was further identified to enable amore cohesive and better-connected community with increased exchange and amplified regionallabor markets. Furthermore, hyperloop was recognized to have a strong environmental positionin relation to other modes of transportation due to its relatively low energy consumption anddedication to sustainable power sources. In terms of safety, the technology is acknowledgedto possess both benefits and drawbacks. While the closed operating environment protects thesurrounding environment from hazards as well as provides protection for the vital parts of thesystem from the surroundings. It also poses as a potential security risk if the tubes are exposedto acts of terror.

The passenger capacity is lower than for HSR, which could be identified as a setback in thatrelation. However, in the relation with air travel hyperloop can be seen as competitive, and forregions with passenger flows similar to the ones in Sweden, the capacity of hyperloop could beconsidered sufficient. There were two factors of relative advantage where the technology statewas considered to prohibit cohesive conclusions. The first one was passenger comfort, whereseveral aspects are still to be measured and developed. The second factor is related to costs,and as common with new technologies still under development there is a substantial uncertaintyregarding cost of the final product. It is however possible to recognize that hyperloop likely willhave a relative advantage to current alternatives in the aspect of maintenance and operationalcosts. And that this together with more significant socio-economic benefits could compensatefor a higher infrastructure investment.

In the theory presented in Section 2.3 it was stated that an innovations ability to diffuse is pos-itively associated with its superior or perceived superior qualities in relation to the products itsupersedes. In the context of hyperloop, the analysis show that the technology likely will havea relative advantage to the contemporary modes of transportation in the categories travel time,environmental sustainability, functionality and lifetime costs. However, passenger capacity is a

122

potential setback for the technology, together with the substantial uncertainties identified forinitial costs and passenger comfort. Together this gives a dual picture of hyperloops relativeadvantage. In the best-case scenario, with low infrastructure costs and comparable levels ofpassenger comfort, hyperloop will possess significant advantage in relation to current alter-natives. If, however the initial cost spiral to a level significantly higher than HSR, this willlikely hinder the adoption rate of the technology. And if the developers cannot solve sufficientcomfort levels, hyperloop will probably be limited to freight transport. Visualizing the analy-sis a summarizing table of the different aspects of relative advantages discussed and analyzedis presented below in Table 7. It should be noted that the relative advantages are based ofpredictions as many of the aspects have not yet been proven.

Table 7: Predicted relative advantage of hyperloop in relation to contemporary modes

Parameter Relative Advantage

Speed and Travel time StrongEnvironmental Sustainability StrongFunctionality StrongSafety MediumOperating cost StrongMaintenance cost StrongConstruction Cost InconclusivePassenger Capacity MediumPassenger Comfort Inconclusive

Compatibility

From a technical viewpoint it can be identified that hyperloop has limited compatibility withexisting infrastructure. No other forms of transportation can be used on the hyperloop in-frastructure and connecting and integrating it with the current infrastructure network couldprove difficult. The proposed underground configuration might be the only viable alternativefor hyperloop. And even then, the fact that the technology requires a completely new and in-compatible infrastructure must be compensated with substantial benefits. Such benefits couldpossibly be achieved by hyperloop however the limited technical compatibility will likely slowdown the diffusion rate.

In relation to government and authorities, the analysis identified that STA lacks models, re-sources and institutional channels to handle disruptive innovations such as hyperloop. TheSwedish Transport Agency on the other hand seems to have operational capability to regulatethe technology, although they do not have the authority to continue the process since hyper-loop was found insufficiently compatible with the definition of any of the existing alternativesand the limiting mandate of the agency. However, the tramway regulation could with smallchanges be adopted to fit the technology. In addition, there are several industry sectors inSweden identified to fit the hyperloop technology. And companies within these sectors couldpotentially benefit greatly from partaking in both developing and building the technology.

123

None of the current models for calculation socio-economic benefits seems sufficiently compat-ible with the hyperloop technology, which could prohibit fully analyzing the consequences ofthe system. Furthermore, it is recognized as harder to obtain governmental subsidies for hyper-loop, as a disruptive technology, in comparison to conventional technologies. And in addition,it emphasized that attracting research funding for hyperloop likely will be difficult since it doesnot fit any of the existing modes of transportation. The technology will most likely involvesubstantial changes in societal life and human behavior which could be the foundation of sub-stantial resistance. However, recognizing that society likely are more receptive to new solutionstoday that in the historical perspective. Finally, the potentially claustrophobic perception ofthe technology is recognized as conflicting with current norms and values.

As presented in Section 2.3, compatibility could be considered as a two-sided term with nor-mative and practical aspects. In relation to practical compatibility, the analysis shows thathyperloop has limited fit to the existing technologies and technological standards. This hasimplications such as lack of available models, resources and channels appropriate for the tech-nology, which most likely will stall the rate of adoption. However, multiple industry sectorscould be considered compatible with the technology, which potentially could push towardsembracing hyperloop.

On the normative side of the expression, factor such as significant alteration to human be-havior and social life is considered to hinder acceptance of hyperloop. Adding to this, thepotential feeling of containment when traveling with hyperloop, together with concerns relatedto the safety of the travel mode, will likely prolong the adoption further. Altogether, boththe normative and practical compatibility seems to be low for hyperloop. And as both ofthese segments are positively related to diffusion, the incompatibility of hyperloop will likelydelay the adoption of the concept. However, this is not uncommon when it comes to radicaldisruptive innovations. Few of these innovations fits their proposed environment initially, andthe subsequent process of adopting and transforming is therefore essential for the long-termsuccess of the innovation (Tidd and Bessant, 2009). And as expressed by Nagy et al. (2016),the complex standard of hyperloop is expected to require new knowledge to be obtained, whichcan be seen as a barrier for potential adopters of the technology.

Complexity

When analyzing the complexity of hyperloop it was identified that several aspects can beconsidered complex. The complex nature of the technology could constitute as a potentialbarrier for the technology, as it necessitates convincing adopters that norms are sufficientlyaccounted for. Further it was identified that hyperloop stations are more complex than itsHSR competitor and that it is difficult to gain a comprehensive picture of the technology andits solutions available.

The combination of technology state, market acceptance and the path dependence, togetherwith the fact that hyperloop is a completely new mode of transport, is probable to increasethe boundary for introducing hyperloop in Sweden. And questions regarding integration andeffects on society could inflict psychological counter forces. The concept is perceived as veryfuturistic in Sweden, especially when intended for passenger transport and a general lack ofunderstanding, knowledge and vision for hyperloops technology and potential can be observed.

124

Raising cognizance of the hyperloop development and concept among Swedish policy makersand building a public opinion for the technology is identified as significant for acceptance, aswell as for enabling research and getting the industry to realize how they can benefit from andcontribute to the technology development. Furthermore, it was observed that hyperloop willrequire new methods and ways of working and that the process of developing these will besignificantly eased if a fully functioning system is constructed.

In relation to the theory presented in Section 2.3, it can be concluded that hyperloop issignificantly complex in multiple aspects. The technology is hard to fully understand and theeffects from it is hard to predict. All levels of potential adopters; policy makers, industry actorsand the population of travelers, needs to be convinced about the feasibility of hyperloop inorder for the concept to gain acceptance. Hence, new knowledge is required which according toTidd and Bessant (2009) will extent the diffusion sequence. In addition, it can be argued thatthe infrastructure integration issues and the new models required for adoption constitutes asskill boundaries and increases the perceived level of use complexity. In summary, the analysisshows that hyperloops complexity will, according to theory, constrain the technology’s the rateof diffusion.

Observability

As expressed in the beginning of this section, there is, according to innovation diffusion theory,a positive relation between observability and visibility of the results achieved by innovationsand the rate of adoption. This analysis has identified that hyperloop has observable societaleffects such as a better connected and more cohesive community, with enhanced exchange. Itis further possible to distinguish likely positive effects in terms of amplification of the regionallabor markets as well as the opportunity to solve the lack of residences in the larger cities ina climate smart way. However, it was also recognized that the level of observability of theseconsequences could be rested by the limited compatibility between hyperloop and the currentmodels for calculation socio-economic benefits. Benefits which likely will be the focus of apotential adoption debate in Sweden.

For the individual adopters, it was distinguished that hyperloop would have highly observableeffects such as increased accessibility, connectivity and availability for travelers, both relatedto geographical regions and the mode itself. Furthermore, the ability to travel freely willbe improved, positively effecting competence exchange between companies and environments.And hyperloops closed operating environment, together with its fully automated operations,is likely to make the transport mode more reliable and at the same time give positive safetybenefits.

Altogether is can be identified that hyperloop, if the technology reaches the predicted per-formance, will have significant observable effects. Which, according to Dearing (2009), isespecially vital when it comes to complex innovations with high degrees of ambiguity suchas hyperloop. And further connected as a critical characteristic in policy creation. There ishowever an aspect regarding innovations in early stages, where expectations are high, thatis interesting to notice. Tidd and Bessant (2009) acknowledge that it, for this segment ofinnovations, can be counterproductive with high visibility, as there is a risk for subsequentdisappointment. And that it in these situations can be beneficial to withhold informationand delay diffusion. This could be a reason to why obtaining comprehensive insight in the

125

hyperloop development and concept is difficult today. It seems like the developing companiesconsciously withhold information about more specific details. And a reason for this could ar-guably be that they consider the maturity of the technology insufficient and that it threatensthe overall perception of the concept.

However, displaying solutions to the technical concerns surrounding the technology, as well asproving the technical feasibility of the concept is, as expressed by Representative of Ramboll(2018), one the most crucial and urgent challenges for hyperloop today. Which is furtheremphasized by Member of the parliament (L) (2018), whom reasons that a higher proof-of-technology needs to be shown before hyperloop can become relevant on a higher level inSweden. Concludingly, the companies developing the hyperloop technology needs to balancelow concrete observability of performance and technology, with potential damages in perceivedbenefits from the system that could originate from displaying early prototypes.

Trialability

Summarizing the analysis of hyperloops trialability it has been identified that the technologyoffers very limited opportunities for testing the technology on a limited scale. The nature ofthe concept necessitates substantial investments, risks and commitment for potential adoptersto trial which according to theory is likely to decrease the rate of diffusion (Sonnenwald et al.,2001). The trialability of hyperloop is however expected to increase once a full-scale systemis realized some ware in the world. Furthermore, the analysis argues that partaking in thedevelopment and building a test facility could have significant benefits in the form of enhancedstrategic knowledge, attracted foreign investments as well as improved innovative-position ofthe region.

The results attained from this section shows that hyperloop so far is limited by the low level oftrialability offered. And as an high-risk, radical and expensive innovation increasing this levelwill be particularly significant (Dearing, 2009). The trialability is so far insufficient to decreaseuncertainty amongst the potential adopters, which is negatively correlated to rapid diffusion(Tidd and Bessant, 2009; Tornatzky and Klein, 1982). It is further argued in literature thatincluding potential adopters in the development process helps to gain a better understanding ofthe user needs and creates user acceptance and commitment (Tidd and Bessant, 2009). This issomething that the companies developing hyperloop should consider, with the main objectiveof understanding needs and improving usability.

7.3 Multi-Level Perspective

If the hyperloop concept would become a reality, it constitutes a new mode of transportation.And for this to happen, the system must be proven both technical feasible, but also com-petitive compared to other alternative modes of transportation. Infrastructure constitutes afundamental element in the social functions and the process of realizing hyperloop will mostlikely include major, long-term technological changes to fulfill, or rather outperform currentmodes of transportation in the context of the societal functions of the society. Furthermore,hyperloop would be intertwined with regulations, user practices, industrial networks and in-frastructure, and hence hyperloop can be argued to include a technical transition (TT) if itbecomes a reality (Geels, 2002).

126

Moreover, the literature review indicates that disruptive technologies often struggles to success-fully break through, as the aspects mentioned above often leads to market lock-in effects (Geels,2002). As long as engineers and incumbents share similar routines, technological regimes willbe shaped, and over the time these regimes will generate technological trajectories (Geels,2002). The empirical study indicates that this is the case for the diffusion of the hyperloopsystem and as technological trajectories is prominent in the railway industry as well as theaviation- and the automotive industry. These path dependencies generates structural tensionsfor the diffusion of hyperloop (Elzen and Wieczorek, 2005; Kaijser, 2004; Dahmen, 2016). Andas long as the community of engineers shares the same vision and direction, and fosters incre-mental improvements along the technical trajectories, it will be challenging to fit in or evenevoke interest for a disruptive system such as hyperloop.

According to the innovation studies, innovations of hyperloops nature tend to struggle todisrupt the technological trajectories, protected by the huge barriers of the existing situations(Geels, 2002; Elzen and Wieczorek, 2005). Furthermore, as the transportation sector arguablyis embedded in a conventional large-technical system (LTS), where history and in particularhistorical investments cannot be neglected (Dahmen, 2016; Geels, 2002; Elzen and Wieczorek,2005; Loorbach et al., 2010; Finger et al., 2005), the dynamic relationship between actors, theregime and the social groups in the MLP framework becomes severely complex.

In Sweden, the empirical study indicates that there historically have been heavy infrastructureinvestments in conventional and old technologies (Representative of Ramboll, 2018), and thatthis constitutes a huge barrier for the diffusion of new infrastructure systems in Sweden, suchas hyperloop (Representative of FS links, 2018). Furthermore, the Swedish government hasa limited budget for infrastructure projects, of which the major part goes into maintainingcurrent systems (Deputy Research Director at VTI, 2018).

Moreover, if the proposal by the NNHI gets accepted, the transport capacity will be sufficienton those routes, the state budget will be fully utilized, and the government will unlikely bewilling to increase the total volume of infrastructure investments in a short-term perspective(Researcher in Transport Planing, 2018). This would create an even larger barrier for the diffu-sion of hyperloop in Sweden. Although alternative means of funding, most likely a combinationbetween private and public (Deputy Research Director at VTI, 2018), could still represent anopportunity for realizing hyperloop in Sweden. And this can be justified by the socio-economicbenefits from hyperloop, which are expected to be great (Representative of Hyperloop Sweden,2018; Representative of FS links, 2018).

The process will however most likely be complex and require extensive collaborations acrossseveral actors within the socio-technical regime and the technological niche, where the sys-tem development currently is taking place. Such collaborations have been continuously ini-tiated by the hyperloop companies and governments and transport authorities across theworld (Hyperloop-One, 2018c; Hyperloop-One, 2018a; Hyperloop Transportation Technolo-gies, 2016a; Hyperloop Transportation Technologies, 2017b; Hyperloop Transportation Tech-nologies, 2017a; Hyperloop Transportation Technologies, 2018b; Hyperloop TransportationTechnologies, 2018e; Hardt, 2018b). Although empirics of this thesis indicates that almost nosuch initiates have been successful in Sweden so far (Member of the Swedish Parliament (M),2018; Member of the parliament (L), 2018; Senior Adviser at ST-Administration, 2018; Headof Technology and Railway at ST-Agency, 2018; Senior Adviser at Transport Analysis, 2018).

127

In order for the hyperloop concept to trigger a TT in the Swedish infrastructure and potentiallyreach a diffusion on the Swedish market, the process will be dependent and embedded in thethree levels of the MLP framework. And as this framework distinguishes socio-technical tran-sitions as an interplay of multiple developments at the three levels: socio-technical landscapes,socio-technical regimes and technological niches (See Tabel 2), each level will be analyzed anddiscussed with respect to the findings of this thesis.

Socio-technical Landscapes

In the MLP framework, the socio-technical landscape is the geographical location where thetechnological innovations might emerge, and this environment is beyond the control of actorsin both the specific niche and regime. Theorist identify it as the system’s environment (Geels,2005), and the socio-technical landscape is characterized by guiding the market developmentand control the regulations that shape the development for these regions. Moreover, thelandscape generates tensions on the regime towards change (Geenhuizen et al., 2005), butthese can be difficult to discover for the actors within the regimes and niches (Blomkvist andLarsson, 2013). In this thesis the socio-technical landscape is therefore defined as the Swedishmarket and has been studied from the perspectives of the Swedish transport market and theSwedish society, and hence it will be analyzed accordingly.

When it comes to the Swedish society, findings indicate that introducing a new mode of trans-portation in the socio-technical landscape of Sweden will include both political and social chal-lenges, but this is not something unique per se, where instead the magnitude of the challengesis of higher relevance. In that context, empirics indicate that on the political level, time-consuming discussions on socio-economic benefits and the necessity of investment is likelyto prolong the decision-making processes of hyperloop in Sweden (Professor in Rail VehicleDynamics, 2018). Furthermore, as the final conclusions and a decision regarding the HSRdiscussions in Sweden still haven’t been solved within the Swedish politics, the maturity inSweden for larger infrastructure investments and the respectively TT it would require, can bequestioned. On the other side, empirics on the social level in Sweden indicates that Sweden isrelatively open for new solutions and the social acceptance and adoption of new technologieslike hyperloop could be an advantage compared to other countries (Professor in Rail VehicleDynamics, 2018; Member of the Swedish Parliament (M), 2018; Representative of Ramboll,2018). This acceptance will however be highly dependent on proving the mode sufficientlysafe, as this aspects is valued high in the Swedish society (Professor in Rail Vehicle Dynamics,2018; Representative of Ramboll, 2018).

Regarding the transportation network in Sweden, empirics indicate that there is a need to ex-pand the capacity of the network in the future, where in particular the rail networks capacityis more or less fully utilized today (Professor in Rail Vehicle Dynamics, 2018; Sverigeforhan-dlingen, 2017). As Sweden mainly has two modes of mass transportation, namely railwayand aviation, the high capacity utilization stresses the infrastructure and increases risks fordisturbances and delays in the daily operations.

Historically, the larger infrastructure investments have almost exclusively been sunken intothe existing infrastructure in Sweden. And as huge investments are bounded to the existingtransport systems, hence nurturing their technological trajectories, lock-in effects arise creatingresistant barriers for governments to overcome if they were to adopt new systems. It could still

128

be possible to invest into new systems such as HSR or hyperloop, but it would be challengingand extremely expensive to create a covering network. For this matter, the aviation industrystill holds an advantage of solely being dependent of airports, which already is an establishednetwork in Sweden (Researcher in Transport Planing, 2018). Furthermore, as the Swedishauthorities discuss if they can afford to invest in HSR or needs to find alternative financingmeasures (Sverigeforhandlingen, 2017), persuading them to invest in something completelynew, such as hyperloop, could be difficult (Professor in Rail Vehicle Dynamics, 2018).

However, in order to meet the future demands for travel, incremental improvements in thecurrent infrastructure will most likely be insufficient on longer terms (Member of the SwedishParliament (M), 2018; Deputy Research Director at VTI, 2018). While the government ofSweden struggles to decide whether to invest or not in the old, conventional technology HSR,this situation can be argued to justify an opportunity, or rather demanding a process toinvestigate new alternative modes of transformation for the market (Deputy Research Directorat VTI, 2018; Member of the Swedish Parliament (M), 2018; Member of the parliament (L),2018). In that line of though, hyperloop could possibly gain positive diffusion.

Beyond the capacity shortage in the transportation network of Sweden, findings indicate thatmore environmentally efficient and sustainable transportation modes are sought after and re-quired (Member of the Swedish Parliament (M), 2018). This induce sever transformationalpressure on the Swedish infrastructure as a LTS and could possibly represent a window of op-portunity for more environmental sustainable modes of transportation to diffuse on the market.This is further identified as one of the prominent determiners when it comes to transforma-tional pressure in the socio-technical landscape of Sweden (Member of the Swedish Parliament(M), 2018).

The main part of travels in Sweden today is between the countryside and the big cities, and be-tween capitals, in other terms domestic destinations (Researcher in Transport Planing, 2018).On these destinations the utilization of aviation is in general the first choice of travel due to itssuperior speeds (Researcher in Transport Planing, 2018). Hence, in order for the transporta-tion network to meet the government goals of availability and environmental sustainability inthe future, alternative modes will have to become competitive. In particular, they most likelyneed to be competitive in relation to the total travel time of aviation to be able to restrict theemissions from air travel and hence limit the impact on the environment. As the environmentalconcerns will continue, and most likely increase over the time, the situation of increased trans-formational pressure on the sector will have to be addressed in a somewhat near future. Asone alternative to accelerate such development, Member of the parliament (L) (2018) broughtup the alternative for increased taxation on emissions to enhance the development of moreenvironmental sustainable modes and to redistributing the customer demands of respectivelymodes of transportation. Such initiative could make the socio-technical landscape of Swedenmore attractive for a potential hyperloop diffusion.

When it comes to transport planning in Sweden, findings indicate the relevance of having atransportation system that is demanded by the market at the same time as the environmentalfootprint originating from the transport remains low (Researcher in Transport Planing, 2018).As fuel independence is a target of Sweden today, fossil fuels that are relatively cheap needto be phased out and replaced by greener alternatives. For this transition to happen thetransformational pressure generated by greenhouse gases and emission in general will become

129

a crucial part. But also, consumers and regulations generate transformative pressure on theregime to change. The literature review indicates that customers are willing to switch due toenvironmental reasons and this will continue to challenge current modes of transportation.

Moreover, from a market perspective, the transformational pressure for the diffusion of atechnology can be characterized by demand-pull and technology push. In the context of thesocio-technical landscape of Sweden, and of course hyperloop, it can on the one hand be arguedto exist a demand-pull in terms of the social demand for faster, more efficient and environmentalfriendly transportation modes in the socio-technical landscape, although this demand is notbounded to the technology of the specific hyperloop system. As actors within the technologicalniche on the other hand facilitates the hyperloop solution by align the technology with thecustomers’ needs for high performing transportation with limited environmental footprint, itcould be argued to be more of a technology push approach by the actors within the technologicalniche level.

Technological niches

In the MLP framework the technological niche level is characterized by protected environ-ments of R&D projects that fosters cross-disciplinary experimentations of niche technologies(Hughes, 1983; Schot and Geels, 2008). Further, it represents an important location for learn-ing processes amongst many dimensions, e.g., user preferences, regulations, technology andinfrastructure, and act as the first step of building the social networks that supports the in-novation (Hoogma, 2002; Schot and Geels, 2008; Geels, 2004). Both actual users and societalgroups can invest time and resources to foster these technology niches where policymakersoften, but not necessarily, also are involved (Schot and Geels, 2008).

In a context of hyperloop and according to the findings of this thesis, this represents the sit-uation where the majority of the development companies behind the hyperloop technologycurrently are today (Virgin Hyperloop One, 2018; Hyperloop Transportation Technologies,2018a; SpaceX, 2018a; TU Delft, 2018a; Hardt, 2018a; TransPod, 2018a). However, no in-dications have been found about larger development currently taking place in Sweden or inthe Nordic region. Instead, the leading companies have located their protected R&D spaces ineither their company’s origin country, like for example the DevLoop plant by Virgin HyperloopOne located in the desert of Nevada, USA (Virgin Hyperloop One, 2018) and Hardt’s test trackin the Netherlands (Hardt, 2018a). Or in countries who have showed particular interest andhighly ambitious expectations on the technology as a potential fifth mode of transportation,seen by the activities in Dubai by Virgin Hyperloop One (Hyperloop-One, 2018c) and the R&Dcenter in Toulouse by HTT (Hyperloop Transportation Technologies, 2017b). These regionscould, in accordance to the theories of the technological niches (Schot and Geels, 2008), beargued to be examples on regions whom are willing to nurture not yet profitable innovationsbased on the assumption that they possess the opportunity to fulfill particular societal andcollective goals in the future. From a niche perspective, it becomes a matter of where hyperloopcompanies are willing to invest their resources, as Lawyers of Setterwalls (2018) identifies:

”... would you rather work with those whom are excited about realizing this or with peoplethat are skeptical and slow, as the politicians have been in the Nordic countries.”

130

And as the interest from the Swedish regime actors has been low, it seems like the hyperloopniche actors are directing their focus on more attentive regions. Moreover, findings of thisthesis enhance this statement, as no hyperloop initiatives or activities have been successful yet(Member of the Swedish Parliament (M), 2018; Member of the parliament (L), 2018).

Although hyperloop could be argued to still be bounded to a technological niche, the de-velopment and the community of engineers, companies and volunteers pursuing to make thehyperloop system a reality, are seemingly no longer a question of smaller regional companiesbut are rather larger international and global companies with partnerships all across the world(Virgin Hyperloop One, 2018; Hyperloop Transportation Technologies, 2018a; Hardt, 2018a).Hence, both actual users and several societal groups, worldwide, are engaged in the projectsand are continuously investing both time and resources to foster the development of the sys-tem, as the theory emphases regarding technological niches (Geels, 2004). Example of thesecould be the agreements between Virgin Hyperloop One and DP World, to build a systemat its deep-water Jebel Ali port in Dubai (Hyperloop-One, 2018a), the partnership betweenRTA in Dubai and Virgin Hyperloop One (Virgin Hyperloop One, 2018), the collaborationbetween HTT and the leading real estate developer in Abu Dhabi, Aldar Properties PJSC(Hyperloop Transportation Technologies, 2018d), or the cooperation between Hardt and thebiggest construction company in the Netherlands, BAM (Hardt, 2018b).

However, finding also indicates that the most prominent partnerships and hence the locationswhere the hyperloop companies focuses their operations and resources are almost exclusivelylocated in regions where the local authorities or policymakers have clearly, and in a relativelyearly phase, indicated a positive attitude towards the proposed hyperloop system. These re-gions constitute a situation, or rather relation, where policymakers and other societal groupsare involved in the processes of realizing the hyperloop concept. Except from the examplesabove, HTT’s strategic partnership with the office of His Highness Sheikh Falah Bin ZayedAl Nahyan in Abu Dhabi (Hyperloop Transportation Technologies, 2017a), the latest part-nerships of HTT with the government of the Indian State of Andhra Pradesh and the onewith NOACA in USA (Hyperloop Transportation Technologies, 2018a), and Virgin HyperloopOne’s partnership with the Indian State of Maharashtra (Hyperloop-One, 2018c) is exampleof these.

As mentioned earlier in the analysis of the TRLs of the hyperloop system, the development hasprogressed rapidly. Currently the development is focused or rather limited by the necessityto validate the performances of the system. However, for that to happen, the constructionof more extensive test tracks is required. As these test tracks will constitute an importantprocess to validate the performances of the system, meanwhile requirements for regulationsand security concerns can be addressed, it will become crucial to have authorities, stakeholdersand policymakers on board and involved in the entire process. Hence, such a process wouldrequire cross-disciplinary collaborations between the technological niche level and actors withinthe socio-technical regime that are relevant for that socio-technical landscape.

The local social networks to support the innovation will be an important determiner when itcomes to whether the project will be efficient and successful or insufficient and delayed. Inthe projects of the Indian State of Maharashtra (Hyperloop-One, 2018c) and the partnershipwith Aldar Properties PJSC in Abu Dhabi (Hyperloop Transportation Technologies, 2018d),both of the projects intends to start with building a operational track between two part points

131

of the route to serve as a platform for testing, certifying and regulating the system for futurecommercial operations, before it will be expanded to a fully commercial system. In parallel tothis, the agreement between HTT and NOACA in USA, comprised by 20 regional stakeholders,including leaders in the industry, national labs, academia and government entities, aims atproviding regulatory framework and safety standards for the hyperloop system in that region.All of these are examples of collaborations between the two lower levels in the MLP frameworkthat have been proven successful.

From a global perspective, findings in this thesis indicates that several of the R&D activitiesof the hyperloop technology are currently taking place internally, behind sealed doors in re-spectively company. Whether this is due to the causality of rivalry and competition to be thefirst company to realize hyperloop as a mode of transportation on the market or simply due tothe lack of technical progression is beyond the knowledge of this report. However, with all thepartnerships currently taking place all around the world, it seems like the hyperloop companiesis somehow trying to break out of their technological niches to gain sufficient momentum inorder to trigger a transition in the socio-technical regime level of incumbents such as policymakers, industry leaders and authorities in the transportation sector in accordance to the MLPtheory (Geels, 2002; Hughes, 1983; Schot and Geels, 2008).

However, designing of the most specific technical solutions will most likely continue to bedeveloped in protected R&D environments within the technological niche level. But as thehyperloop system is a potential new mode of transportation that in order to be fully com-mercialized will have to gain diffusion in a LTS system (Hughes, 1983; Jonsson, 2000), whereseveral barrier and lock-in effects do exists (Geels, 2002; Elzen and Wieczorek, 2005; Tongurand Engwall, 2017; Geels, 2005), there is no doubt that communication, partnerships and col-laboration across multiple levels in the MLP framework will remain essential for its success.This is something that will become even more crucial in the future work of commercialize thesystem in a socio-technical society.

Socio-technical regime

The socio-technical regime level, which is the bridge between the socio-technical landscapeand the technological niche, constitutes the network of actors and social groups in the societythat emphasis a complex set of rules and technical or physical elements (Geels, 2004). It ischaracterized by paradigms, rules and the dynamic relationship between actors and regimes(Geels, 2005).

In the Swedish context, there are several important actors within the socio-technical regimethat most likely will be a crucial part of the process for realizing hyperloop in the socio-technicallandscape of Sweden. For the scope of this thesis, the following areas and respective actorshave been identified and taken into account: Policy (The Swedish government), TransportAuthorities (ST-Administration, ST-Agency, Transport Analysis) and Research in Sweden(VTI and KTH) complemented by the integrated perspectives of hyperloop involved companiesin the Nordic region (FS links and Hyperloop Sweden). Following this sectioning, each areawill be analyzed, discussed and presented accordingly.

PolicyAs the emerging trend of new technology generates a TT in the society (Representative of

132

Ramboll, 2018), this trend need to be observed by politicians and considered in the decision-making process. Even if current objectives include incremental improvements of the HSRnetwork, the emerging technologies, such as hyperloop, need to be acknowledge on a politicallevel to gain consensus (Representative of Ramboll, 2018). The government facilitates animportant role when promoting solutions in the society and in that context, they have aresponsibility to in some extent support enthusiastic and innovative solutions (Member of theparliament (L), 2018). It does not necessarily have to correlate to the amount of financialresources that could be distributed to the project (Member of the parliament (L), 2018), butrather act as an open-minded signal towards the technological niche level and possibly be ableto enhance or provoke initiatives within the socio-technical regime level.

Although there have been some hyperloop activities in the Swedish parliament, namely ahyperloop seminar in 2016 (Member of the Swedish Parliament (M), 2018) and a petitioncalled “Hyperloop i Sverige” (Sundin et al., 2016) which also was presented to the Parliamentin 2016, findings of this thesis indicates that the interest for hyperloop amongst the Swedishpoliticians are basically absent (Member of the parliament (L), 2018; Member of the SwedishParliament (M), 2018; Representative of Ramboll, 2018). As the political risk involved withexperimentation of new technologies involves being heavily criticized if the project fails, theimmaturity of the system can be identified as one of the reasons for this (Member of theparliament (L), 2018; Member of the Swedish Parliament (M), 2018; Lawyers of Setterwalls,2018). Despite this, empirics indicate that Sweden arguably gets increased pressure by thealready established partnerships of Estonia, Finland and Norway, and FS links confirms thatthey have got invitations from the parliament of Sweden to initiate a discussion (Representativeof FS links, 2018).

Moreover, as seen in the TRL analysis, the hyperloop development is progressing rapidly andseveral successful activities have been fulfilled in the last two years, making the evaluation andconclusions of hyperloop in the parliament of Sweden in 2016 out-of-date. As the politicalrisk involves a complex and usually time-consuming process, authorities and actors withinthe socio-technical regime need to have clear directions from the government to promote theawareness of disruptive technologies to eliminate that the project risk becoming outdated oruncompetitive once it is finished and hence making it an unprofitable or non-attractive businesscase.

Another reason for the political passivity is argued to be the four-year term of election in Swe-den, as it becomes hard to initiate large projects without entering in an election period whereopposing parties will target current decisions and projects (Lawyers of Setterwalls, 2018). Thepolitical focus will be on finalize the already initiated projects, and from June there will likelybe no new projects started before the election (Lawyers of Setterwalls, 2018). Furthermore, apotential pitfall of this could be that the ones pushing the project forward politically, whomposes most knowledge and the willingness to take some political risk, gets laid of (Lawyers ofSetterwalls, 2018). This has been observed in the case for hyperloop in Finland (Lawyers ofSetterwalls, 2018). If no one dares to take the political risk, bet the first 5 billion euros andbe ready to take the blame if it does not work in order to set Sweden on the track towards anew era in time, the diffusion of hyperloop will become challenging (Lawyers of Setterwalls,2018). However, as there is an election period this year in Sweden, it could represent a windowof opportunity to gain new political awareness in the earlier stages of the four-year mandateperiod of the new Parliament.

133

There have been challenges in creating a common forum where Swedish politicians can discuss,bring awareness and make smart decisions regarding topics such as hyperloop (Representativeof Ramboll, 2018), and actors within the socio-technical regime level argues that they wouldlike to see increased cooperation and initiatives here on a political level, as politicians needto become more responsive in the matter (Representative of Ramboll, 2018; Representativeof Hyperloop Sweden, 2018; Lawyers of Setterwalls, 2018). Moreover, Lawyers of Setterwalls(2018) argues that the political situation in Sweden paralyzing the discussion, as no one daresto take the first initiatives and the industry would most likely join if the politicians express aninterest in the subject.

However, findings indicate that there are still some channels available to provoke the polit-ical interest for hyperloop in Sweden (Member of the parliament (L), 2018; Member of theSwedish Parliament (M), 2018). These are political conferences where these types of topicsare discussed or through political discussions in either social media or the camber to bringup the subject on the agenda. When it comes to social media, either a journalist or a personwithin the government could be the author of the article, although the question regarding if theauthor should be a representative from the transportation sector or someone else promotingthe concept has to be addressed successfully (Member of the Swedish Parliament (M), 2018).

Transport AuthoritiesAs one of the transport authorities of Sweden, ST-Administration constitute one of the mostprominent actors in the socio-technical regime level as they are the government agency re-sponsible for the long-term planning of transport system in Sweden (Trafikverket, 2018a).This includes to develop sustainable and efficient transport systems, encircling all modes oftransportation as well as building, maintaining and operating rail and road infrastructure inSweden (Trafikverket, 2018a). Hence, if hyperloop would become a reality in Sweden, ST-Administration would most likely be a part of that process (Deputy Research Director atVTI, 2018; Senior Adviser at ST-Administration, 2018; Head of Technology and Railway atST-Agency, 2018; Researcher in Transport Planing, 2018).

When it comes to hyperloop, findings from the Swedish Transport Administration (ST- Ad-ministration) indicates that there are people within the organization that keeps track of thetechnical development around the world, and they even have a substantial budget for theresearch of this matter (Senior Adviser at ST-Administration, 2018). However, there are alack of models and resources to manage new technologies such as hyperloop and as a pub-lic administration the innovational drive is identified as generally weak (Senior Adviser atST-Administration, 2018). Moreover, ST-Administration are identified to currently be fullyfocused on the existing technology solutions in the market, and resources for subsidiary venture,usually included with high risks, do not simply exist (Senior Adviser at ST-Administration,2018).

In comparison to this, hyperloop actors in Sweden argues that there is currently no one at theST-Administration that in their role description has the responsibility to look at or investigatehyperloop (Representative of Hyperloop Sweden, 2018). This is something that is argued tonot be uncommon when it comes to new technologies, as it takes time for large governmentorganizations to assign official positions to look into new concepts (Representative of HyperloopSweden, 2018). However, this aspect exemplifies and stresses the current challenges in aimingfor a successful collaboration within the socio-technical regime level. Regardless of, a mismatch

134

between ST-Administration as a actor in the socio-technological regime level and HyperloopSweden as a company involved with the hyperloop technology can be observed, where thepresence of an appropriate channels to initiate such a discussions seems to be currently missing.Moreover, a need for increase knowledge and competence to manage such a process couldinevitably be required for ST-Administration if they were to evaluate the hyperloop concept.

Beyond this, findings also indicates that the entrepreneurial mindset of the hyperloop compa-nies, pursuing large scale systems directly might become extremely difficult to realize in Sweden(Lawyers of Setterwalls, 2018), and in particular for the ST-Administration (Senior Adviserat ST-Administration, 2018). Whether this is a huge mismatch with the Swedish culture andthe complex processes for infrastructure planning in Sweden can be discussed (Lawyers ofSetterwalls, 2018), however it will remain an important subject that will have to be addressfurther if hyperloop will be realized in Sweden. As an alternative, the Senior Adviser at ST-Administration (2018) emphasizes that a focusing on fright transport could possibly constitutea more suitable strategy for Sweden and in the same time be justified by both a very efficientand financially beneficial system. Once the system is proven functional, it could later on beexpanded towards commercial passenger transportation (Senior Adviser at ST-Administration,2018).

As the second transportation authority and hence a actors within the socio-technical regimeof Sweden, The Swedish Transport Agency (ST-Agency) is a state authority under the gov-ernment, belonging to the Ministry of Enterprise and Innovation (Transportstyrelsen, 2018b).The authority is responsible for providing rules and regulations for transport within Sweden.Further, the agency is accountable for ensuring that these regulations are followed by thepublic, authorities as well as companies and organizations (Transportstyrelsen, 2018a), andhence it would become a crucial part if hyperloop would become an alternative for the Swedishmarket.

When it comes to the approval process of safety issues connected to hyperloop and how thiscan be challenging to define with respect to regulations of current modes of transportation,empirics of this thesis indicate that the ST-Agency arguably has relevant experiences andthe organizational structure to manage such a process in the future (Head of Technologyand Railway at ST-Agency, 2018). As synergies and cooperation between regulations andprocesses of railway and aviation can be utilized for the process, it is argued to be a hugeadvantage (Head of Technology and Railway at ST-Agency, 2018). Moreover, regardless ofthe potential owner structure or means of financing (private vs. public organizations) of thehyperloop system, it has no impact on how the ST-Agency relates to the project (Head ofTechnology and Railway at ST-Agency, 2018). Although the ST-Agency is claimed to possessthe capabilities to manage the subject, findings also indicates that they have been approachedby a hyperloop company within the technological niche level in early 2017, with the purposeto explore how the approval process in Sweden could be carried out (Head of Technology andRailway at ST-Agency, 2018). Following that request, the council of representatives from allfour of the current transportation modes concluded that hyperloop would fit best under therailway department, and more specifically the tramway regulation. However, as the tramwayregulation is limited to only local passenger transportation the fit was not substantial enoughand consequently the ST-Agency concluded that they did not have the mandate to pursue thecase further (Head of Technology and Railway at ST-Agency, 2018). As their application tothe Ministry of Enterprise and Innovation to extend the mandate did not go through, the ST-

135

Agency currently lacks mandate to evaluate the approval of a hyperloop system in the future,which will be a large short-term barrier for the diffusion of hyperloop in Sweden.

Since there are no other authority in Sweden with the ability to evaluate new transport modes(Head of Technology and Railway at ST-Agency, 2018), a extended mandate will be required ifhyperloop possibly should be realized on the Swedish market. The time for the approval processof hyperloop can vary largely, and depends highly on how urgent and prioritized it is for theMinistry of Enterprise and Innovation (Head of Technology and Railway at ST-Agency, 2018).In order to make that processes more efficient, collaboration and transformational pressurewithin the socio-technical regime will most likely be required, and in particular more specifiedand urgent directions from actors within politics will be vital. If this would be the case, theapproval process could take from a few month to a couple of years, depending if experiencesfrom the approval in other countries can be utilized or not (Head of Technology and Railwayat ST-Agency, 2018).

Lastly, empirics regarding the third and last transport authority in Sweden, namely TransportAnalysis, indicate that nor have they made any analysis on the hyperloop subject (SeniorAdviser at Transport Analysis, 2018). As a government authority they are focused on theimpact assessments and evaluation of transport policy initiatives and actions, and as no suchproposals have been made about hyperloop, Transport Analysis have not had any reason tofurther investigate the issue (Senior Adviser at Transport Analysis, 2018). Hence, a policyinitiative will most likely be required in order to get Transport Analysis involved with thehyperloop concept.

Research in SwedenAs the hyperloop system currently is in an R&D phase, including several new engineering andtechnical solutions, it will most likely result in several potential effects across multiple levels inthe MLP framework. Hence the research conducted in the subject will be an important partof the socio-technical regime level and all the way down to the technological niche level.

Although Researcher in Transport Planing (2018) argues that Sweden should not take an activerole in developing the hyperloop technology, as once the concept is fully developed it will be rel-atively easy to copy, Member of the Swedish Parliament (M) (2018) argues that Sweden shouldbe a part in the earlier stages of research and development of hyperloop. This participationshould however most likely be relatively small in the beginning and include some kind of pre-study. These initiatives will arguably require some kind of community consisting of multipleactors with the socio-technical regime level and preferably embedded with at least one actorsof the technological niche level. Moreover, Sweden is argued to possess research and industryqualities that can be used to contribute to the development of hyperloop (Representative ofRamboll, 2018) and partaking in developing solutions and apply for patents will inevitably putSweden in a better position when economic and political conditions for a hyperloop systememerge (Representative of Hyperloop Sweden, 2018).

Despite this fact, findings in this thesis indicates that there currently are negligible, if any,research being rendered related to hyperloop in Sweden (Deputy Research Director at VTI,2018; Professor in Rail Vehicle Dynamics, 2018; Researcher in Transport Planing, 2018). Thereasons for this is identified partly due to the situation that there are no individuals directlyassigned to create research proposals related the technology nor is there a current funding

136

structure for it (Deputy Research Director at VTI, 2018). But also partly as the governmentseems uninterested to initiative research on hyperloop and no concrete suggestions or requestshas been filled by the companies within the technological niche level.

The lack of interest from a political actors view, seems to be the limited knowledge revolving thetechnology together with the restricted involvement in specific research projects as the govern-ment only can promote certain research areas rather then control individual research projects(Member of the Swedish Parliament (M), 2018). From the research perspective however, itseems like there is a lack of research proposals related to hyperloop and almost exclusively, noone seems to be willing to create them in current structure for funding of research. But TheDivision of Rail Vehicles at KTH is open for the idea (Professor in Rail Vehicle Dynamics,2018), indicating that there seems to be a lack of an appropriate channel to communicate suchactivities in the research community.

Furthermore, findings indicates that in order to enhance those activities in the current envi-ronment, entrepreneurial, genuinely interested researcher will most likely be required to triggerenough momentum to address hyperloop in a research context. For that to happen, researchinitiatives for hyperloop either has to be address more sufficiently by government directivesor more volunteers in Sweden have to be willing to step up and contribute with solutions andbring interest in the technology and the business case. In the first case, Rifo could consti-tute a forum for facilitating contacts and dialogues between members of the parliament andresearchers to inform and provoke interest for the hyperloop concept among politicians andscientists (Member of the Swedish Parliament (M), 2018). In the later case, Hyperloop Swedenand FS links are doing a extensive work in the Nordic Region, but in order to enhance thatprocess and get enough momentum within the socio-technical regime a possible forum wherediscussions on how specific actors, industries and business can contribute and match the needsof the companies within the technological niche level could be created. In parallel to this,the technical universities in Sweden could preferably aim for collaboration with the hyperloopcommunity in the technological niche level to open up the possibility to attract and developtalents, competence and knowledge within the subject. Such activities are currently, accordingto the findings of this thesis, absent in the universities of Sweden.

7.3.1 Summary

To summarize, the analysis indicates that for hyperloop to become a new mode of transporta-tion it has to be proven both technical feasible and competitive compared to other alternativemodes. However, despite this the literature review indicates that disruptive technologies oftenstruggles to successfully break through as market lock-in effects exist and as analysis identifiedthat path dependencies is prominent in the railway industry as well as the aviation industryin Sweden, this cannot be neglected.

On the Socio-technical Landscape of Sweden it has been concluded that introducing hyperloopwould include both political and social challenges, where time-consuming discussions on socio-economic benefits and necessity of investment is likely to prolong the decision-making process.However, a needs to expand the capacity in the Swedish transportation network and a futuredemand for more environmental and sufficient transportation modes has been identified, andthis could indicate a window of opportunity for hyperloop to emerge.

137

The Technological niche level is concluded to currently be the place where the majority of thehyperloop development is taking place, characterized by protected R&D environments thatfosters cross-disciplinary experimentation. Findings indicate that none of these activities arecurrently taking place in the region of Sweden but rather at location where either the regionhave expressed explicit interest in the technology or at the origin country of the company.Moreover, hyperloop companies seem to direct their operations towards regions where localauthorities or policymakers have clearly, and in relatively early phases, indicated a positiveposture towards the hyperloop concept. This will become significantly important in order toincrease the TRL’s of the hyperloop technology and it will become crucial to have authorities,stakeholders and policymakers on board and involved in the entire process.

The main part of the designing of the most specific technical solutions will most likely continueto be developed in protected R&D environments within the technological niche level. But inorder for hyperloop to be fully commercialized in the future, the MLP framework emphasis thatcommunication, partnerships and collaboration across multiple levels in the MLP frameworkwill remain essential for its success.

On the Socio-technical regime level, the three perspectives of Transport Authorities, Researchin Sweden and hyperloop involved companies has been processed through the MLP framework.Firstly, analysis indicates that there have been two hyperloop activities in the Swedish par-liament, but despite this, the hyperloop concept still struggles to achieve political awarenessand even more so, political acceptance. As the technology is progressing rapidly new activitiesand evaluations of the system could be in place. Moreover, analysis further indicates that ithas been challenging to create a common forum where Swedish politicians can discuss andbring awareness of topic such as hyperloop, and this would limit the diffusion of hyperloop inshort-term.

When it comes to transport authorities in Sweden, analysis concludes that both the ST-Administration and the ST-Agency most likely would be a part of the process where hyperloopwould be realizing in Sweden. However, currently ST-Administration does not have the capa-bilities to comprehend a disruptive system such as hyperloop and ST-Agency lacks the mandateto evaluate the hyperloop system for a commercial application, although ST-Agency claims topossess the right capabilities for it. As the last transport authority, neither Transport Analysishas made any analysis of the hyperloop concept.

Lastly, analysis indicates that there currently is no, or negligible, research being renderedrelated to hyperloop in Sweden. This is partly due to the situation where no individuals aredirectly assigned to create research proposals related to the hyperloop concept nor is there afunding structure for it. This becomes even more limited, as the government seems uninterestedto initiative research on the matter.

Concludingly, the MLP analysis indicates that if actors within the socio-technical regime levelin Sweden, and in particular the government nor the Swedish transportation authorities areinterested in alternative transportation solutions, the possibility for technologies such as hyper-loop to reaching diffusion becomes significantly limited (Member of the Swedish Parliament(M), 2018; Lawyers of Setterwalls, 2018). In order to engage an interest for the hyperloopsystem in Sweden, and start working with it more practically, discussions, initiatives and col-laboration across multiple of the actors within the socio-technical regime could be required. It

138

will not be sufficient if only a minority of them is pursuing and evaluating the system, as theyare dependent of each other to reach diffusion in the conservative LTS infrastructure on thesocio-technical landscape level of Sweden.

Moreover, in order for the hyperloop system to pursue a technology push in the Swedish societyit will most likely require a community that includes cross-collaboration between actors in theMLP levels. That community can then set up a collective forum for discussions and infrastruc-ture planning to reach short, medium and long-term goals in the subject. According to thefindings of this thesis, there is no such community in Sweden today. Such community couldfurther be enhanced if it could be successfully incorporated with companies in the technologicalniche level.

For this matter, there are some organizations that are currently working to initiate a discussionin Sweden, namely Hyperloop Sweden and FS links. These organizations could tentatively takea leading role as communicators between the actors within the technological niche level andactors of the socio-technical regime level. In that work, these companies could utilize theirexpertise for the geographical location of Sweden to map the transformational pressures inthe socio-technical landscape level and match it with respectively MLP level of Sweden. Asthere are no hyperloop actors present within the technological niche level in Sweden, suchcollaboration will most likely contribute with valuable insights both for the technological nicheactors outside the boarders of Sweden as well as for the actors within the socio-technicalregime level inside the boarders of Sweden. Furthermore, such activities could provoke ageneral interest for the technology in the socio-technical landscape of Sweden and assist insetting up a potential community for hyperloop initiatives in Sweden amongst multiple actorsin the socio-technical regime.

7.3.2 Summary

To summarize, the analysis indicates that for hyperloop to become a new mode of transporta-tion it has to be proven both technical feasible and competitive compared to other alternativemodes. However, despite this the literature review indicates that disruptive technologies oftenstruggles to successfully break through as market lock-in effects exist and as analysis identifiedthat path dependencies is prominent in the railway industry as well as the aviation industryin Sweden, this cannot be neglected.

On the Socio-technical Landscape of Sweden it has been concluded that introducing hyperloopwould include both political and social challenges, where time-consuming discussions on socio-economic benefits and necessity of investment is likely to prolong the decision-making process.However, a needs to expand the capacity in the Swedish transportation network and a futuredemand for more environmental and sufficient transportation modes has been identified, andthis could indicate a window of opportunity for hyperloop to emerge.

The Technological niche level is concluded to currently be the place where the majority of thehyperloop development is taking place, characterized by protected R&D environments thatfosters cross-disciplinary experimentation. Findings indicate that none of these activities arecurrently taking place in the region of Sweden but rather at location where either the regionhave expressed explicit interest in the technology or at the origin country of the company.Moreover, hyperloop companies seem to direct their operations towards regions where local

139

authorities or policymakers have clearly, and in relatively early phases, indicated a positiveposture towards the hyperloop concept. This will become significantly important in order toincrease the TRL’s of the hyperloop technology and it will become crucial to have authorities,stakeholders and policymakers on board and involved in the entire process.

The main part of the designing of the most specific technical solutions will most likely continueto be developed in protected R&D environments within the technological niche level. But inorder for hyperloop to be fully commercialized in the future, the MLP framework emphasis thatcommunication, partnerships and collaboration across multiple levels in the MLP frameworkwill remain essential for its success.

On the Socio-technical regime level, the three perspectives of Transport Authorities, Researchin Sweden and hyperloop involved companies has been processed through the MLP framework.Firstly, analysis indicates that there have been two hyperloop activities in the Swedish par-liament, but despite this, the hyperloop concept still struggles to achieve political awarenessand even more so, political acceptance. As the technology is progressing rapidly new activitiesand evaluations of the system could be in place. Moreover, analysis further indicates that ithas been challenging to create a common forum where Swedish politicians can discuss andbring awareness of topic such as hyperloop, and this would limit the diffusion of hyperloop inshort-term.

When it comes to transport authorities in Sweden, analysis concludes that both the ST-Administration and the ST-Agency most likely would be a part of the process where hyperloopwould be realizing in Sweden. However, currently ST-Administration does not have the capa-bilities to comprehend a disruptive system such as hyperloop and ST-Agency lacks the mandateto evaluate the hyperloop system for a commercial application, although ST-Agency claims topossess the right capabilities for it. As the last transport authority, neither Transport Analysishas made any analysis of the hyperloop concept.

Lastly, analysis indicates that there currently is no, or negligible, research being renderedrelated to hyperloop in Sweden. This is partly due to the situation where no individuals aredirectly assigned to create research proposals related to the hyperloop concept nor is there afunding structure for it. This becomes even more limited, as the government seems uninterestedto initiative research on the matter.

Concludingly, the MLP analysis indicates that if actors within the socio-technical regime levelin Sweden, and in particular the government nor the Swedish transportation authorities areinterested in alternative transportation solutions, the possibility for technologies such as hyper-loop to reaching diffusion becomes significantly limited (Member of the Swedish Parliament(M), 2018; Lawyers of Setterwalls, 2018). In order to engage an interest for the hyperloopsystem in Sweden, and start working with it more practically, discussions, initiatives and col-laboration across multiple of the actors within the socio-technical regime could be required. Itwill not be sufficient if only a minority of them is pursuing and evaluating the system, as theyare dependent of each other to reach diffusion in the conservative LTS infrastructure on thesocio-technical landscape level of Sweden.

Moreover, in order for the hyperloop system to pursue a technology push in the Swedish societyit will most likely require a community that includes cross-collaboration between actors in theMLP levels. That community can then set up a collective forum for discussions and infrastruc-

140

ture planning to reach short, medium and long-term goals in the subject. According to thefindings of this thesis, there is no such community in Sweden today. Such community couldfurther be enhanced if it could be successfully incorporated with companies in the technologicalniche level.

For this matter, there are actually some organizations that are currently working to initiate sucha discussion in Sweden, namely Hyperloop Sweden and FS links. These organizations couldtentatively take a leading role as communicators between the actors within the technologicalniche level and actors of the socio-technical regime level. In that work, these companies couldutilize their expertise for the geographical location of Sweden to map the transformationalpressures in the socio-technical landscape level and match it with respectively MLP level ofSweden. As there are no hyperloop actors present within the technological niche level inSweden, such collaboration will most likely contribute with valuable insights both for thetechnological niche actors outside the boarders of Sweden as well as for the actors within thesocio-technical regime level inside the boarders of Sweden. Furthermore, such activities couldprovoke a general interest for the technology in the socio-technical landscape of Sweden andassist in setting up a potential community for hyperloop initiatives in Sweden amongst multipleactors in the socio-technical regime.

141

Chapter Summary

In this chapter, the gathered empirical data has been analyzed in relation to the previouslypresented frameworks and theoretical field. Firstly, the technical maturity of the hyperloopconcept has been evaluated with the framework of Technology Readiness Level (TRL). In thisanalysis it was concluded that the majority of the hyperloop companies have a maturity of TRL2-3. And that they, to reach a maturity of TRL 3, need to perform experimental, laboratory-based studies to physically validate that previous predictions or applications are correct andfeasible. Currently it seems like Virgin Hyperloop One is the company that has reached furthestwith their 500-meter test track (DevLoop). But beyond Virgin Hyperloop One, findings alsoindicated that several of the other hyperloop companies have aggressive predictions to expand orbuild new test tracks, which potentially could reduce the gap already in a short-term perspective.However, a number of critical uncertainties surrounding the technology is recognized, such asthe final cost of the system as well as passenger comfort levels. Secondly, analysis of theframework Characteristics of Diffusion concluded the hyperloop system to have a high Relativeadvantage and Complexity while the Compatibility and Trialability of the technology remainedlow. The final characteristic, Observability, was identified to be medium as the observabilityof hyperloop’s effects is constrained by the lack of appropriate models. Lastly, the analysisof the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) framework identified several boundaries that exist onthe Swedish market for the diffusion of hyperloop. The existing infrastructure cause lock-ineffects and path dependencies hindering new technologies to reach diffusion on the market,and as hyperloop requires a completely new infrastructure, this will pose a huge boundary forthe technology. Further, the limited understanding, knowledge and vision for the hyperloopconcept in Sweden will constitute a barrier limiting the acceptance for the technology. Finally,it was concluded that the technology can be considered to have a limited fit with not only theexisting infrastructure but also with contemporary methods, models, organizations and fundingstructures, which likely also will prolong the adoption of the technology in Sweden.

142

8 Conclusion

In the introductory chapter of this paper, interesting topics on current trends within trans-portation, the transport market, transport alternatives, the hyperloop technology and theSwedish context were introduced. Subsequently, this were condensed down to a problem stat-ing that the hyperloop technology is still surrounded by major uncertainties and there aremany obstacles to overcome before hyperloop can become a commercial reality. And that theearly state of the hyperloop technology together with the limited knowledge of the technologyin Sweden makes it difficult to predict if hyperloop can become a viable transport alterna-tive on the Swedish market. With foundation in this problem, the purpose of this thesis wasdelineated as following;

The purpose of this paper is to address this field by giving an overarching understanding ofthe dynamics of the Swedish transport market, together with a comprehensive evaluation of

the hyperloop concept. And hence contribute to more inclusive knowledge and understandingof hyperloop’s viability in the Swedish context.

From this purpose, one main and three sub research questions were formulated in a mannerthat the answers to these questions simultaneously realize the delineated purpose. The researchprocess behind this paper has been directed towards addressing these questions. In this section,the relevant conclusions drawn for each of the research questions will be presented, startingwith the sub questions. And accordingly, conclusions regarding the purpose are deduced.

8.1 How technically ready is the hyperloop technology and what uncertain-ties are there?

Since the hyperloop concept was introduced in 2013, the maturity of the proposed technologyhas progressed rapidly. Five years has passed and during that time, a community of companiesand individuals striving to realize the technology has emerged. This community has managedto bring the concept from an idea on a piece of paper to a functioning technology with physicaltest facilities. However, as the results from the analysis of this paper displays, there is still along way to go before hyperloop reaches full maturity.

In terms of the nine scale Technology Readiness Level (TRL) framework, it has been identifiedthat TRL 1, fulfillment of basic principles observed and reported, has been reached throughfeasibility studies of the hyperloop concept, explaining the applications that would be usedto realize the hyperloop technology (Musk, 2013; Hyperloop Transportation Technologies,2018a; Virgin Hyperloop One, 2018). Following, the technology concepts have been formulated,corresponding with TRL 2. And the technology has been connected with an appropriatecontext through analytical and feasibility studies, identified as the first step towards reachingTRL 3. However, for the technology to reach a full maturity of TRL 3, experimental laboratory-based tests need to physically validate that previous predictions or applications are correctand feasible (Mankins, 1995). And as hyperloop is yet to prove its projected performance, thetechnology cannot be considered fully validated on this level.

The most advanced test facility currently in place is Virgin Hyperloop One full size 500-meterlong test track, called DevLoop. On this facility the company managed to reach the present

143

hyperloop speed record of 387kmh in late 2017 with a full-scale passenger pod (Virgin Hyper-loop One, 2018). This test track establish that tube and pod components work together, whichcould be argued to be corresponding with TRL 4. But as the performance levels projected (e.g.velocity, frequency of pods etc.) has not been verified, it was concluded that the technologystill is in a state of exploring TRL 3.

Considering this level of maturity, it is recognized hyperloop, to emerge as a viable transportalternative, needs to progress towards higher levels of technical readiness. To achieve thisthe research identifies that longer test tracks are required to prove the predicted performance,hence fulfilling TRL 3 (Mankins, 1995). This is notably in line with the identified currentfocus of the hyperloop companies, pursuing construction of larger test facilities to validate thefeasibility of the system. Following a successful proof-of-concept, basic technology elementssuch as shifts and air locks must be aligned and integrated to validate that the system still isable to achieve sought after levels of performances. Once this is proven, hyperloop has reacheda maturity level corresponding with TRL 4 (Mankins, 1995).

To reach maturity levels beyond TRL 4, hyperloop must integrate supporting elements, val-idating the technology on a component-, sub- and system level in a realistic environment(Mankins, 1995). This entails components and solutions such as stations and logistics and willmost likely require agreements and collaboration with local authorities. The research recog-nizes that several agreements like these have been signed across the world, indicating that thisprocess already is in motion.

As common with technologies in an early phase of development, there are still several technicaluncertainties that can be recognized surrounding hyperloop. Especially emphasized in thefindings are the aspects of passenger comfort and final cost of the system. Furthermore, theability to reach the predicted performance is still debated and the difficult task of findingways to integrate hyperloop in the existing infrastructure network is yet to be demonstrated.Especially emphasized is the ability to access the inner cities, as this affects the attractivenessof the mode. For this it can be established that the proposed underground configuration mightbe the only viable alternative. Additionally, it was identified that hyperloop stations will bemore complex than its HSR competitor.

It is difficult to gain a comprehensive picture of the technology and solutions available today.A reason for this is that a large part of hyperloops R&D activities are bounded to in-houseactivities, beyond the knowledge of the public. Arguably, the limited observability of the tech-nology specifics offered to the public could be tactical strategy from the developing companies.As pointed out by Tidd and Bessant (2009), it can be beneficial to withhold information anddelay diffusion for innovations in early stages of development, where expectations are high.This since offering a high visibility in these phases can be counterproductive as there is arisk for subsequent disappointment. The maturity of the prototypes available today might beconsidered insufficient, hence motivating the limited insight available.

It is however identified that displaying solutions to the technical concerns surrounding thetechnology, as well as proving the technical feasibility of the concept is one the most crucialand urgent challenges for hyperloop today. And a higher proof-of-technology is considered tobe required before hyperloop can become relevant on a higher level in Sweden.

Considering future expansion several of the companies developing hyperloop has announced

144

planned projects. Hardt’s current 30m test tube is expected to be expanded to a 5km full scaletest setup (Hardt, 2018c) and HTT is already constructing a 320m test track in Touluse, Francewhich is expected to be operational later this year (Hyperloop Transportation Technologies,2018f). Furthermore, HTT has announced that they will start construction in the Emirates inthe end of 2018 and Virgin Hyperloop One intend to build a hyperloop system between Puneand Mumbai. Where the later one, will first be initiated with a six-month feasibility study,followed by two to three years construction of a full system platform intended for testing(Hyperloop-One, 2018c).

8.2 What boundaries exists on the Swedish market for a technology likehyperloop?

When it comes to the potential adoption of hyperloop on the Swedish market the analysis hasacknowledged several boundaries to consider. As the hyperloop concept constitutes a new modeof transportation, it will most likely involve major, long-term technological changes. And asit has the potential to challenge, or rather outperform, current modes of transportation in thecontext of societal functions it can be argued to include a Technical Transition (TT) accordingto the technical transition theory (Geels, 2002). Disruptive technologies often struggle tosuccessfully break through the barriers for market entry, hence outlining these boundaries canbe considered especially important in the relation between hyperloop and Sweden.

It has been observed that several technological trajectories exist within the Swedish transportsystem, trajectories including path dependencies that will generate structural tension restrain-ing the diffusion of hyperloop. These dependencies will sustain as long as the community ofengineers in Sweden shares the same vision and fosters incremental improvements along theexisting technical trajectories, hence poses as a significant barrier for fitting in, or even evokinginterest for, hyperloop. It is further distinguished that the historically large investments thathas been sunken into the existing infrastructure network has created lock-in effects towardsthe current technical trajectories, ultimately resulting in a substantial barrier for the diffusionof new modes of transportation.

Hyperloop has limited fit to the existing technologies and technological standards. This hasimplications such as lack of available models, resources and channels appropriate for the tech-nology, which most likely will stall the rate of adoption. A noticeable boundary for hyperloopin this regard is that the concept and its predicted performance is considered insufficientlycompatible with the existing models for calculating socio-economic benefits. This limits theobservability of the systems consequences as well as prohibits accurately analyzing the benefitsof the system.

In addition, it is recognized that the trialability of the hyperloop at this point is a boundary.The combination between the technology state and the nature of its complexity offers verylimited opportunities to trial the concept. Testing hyperloop necessitates substantial invest-ments, risks and commitment for potential adopters, both from a societal and humancentricperspective, which according to theory is likely to decrease the rate of diffusion (Sonnenwaldet al., 2001).

It is probable that hyperloop will involve substantial changes in societal life and human be-havior which could be the foundation of considerable resistance. It will thereof be necessary to

145

convince all levels of potential adopters about the feasibility of hyperloop to gain acceptance.However, it can be considered difficult to fully comprehend the hyperloop concept, especiallywhen entailed for passenger transport, potentially making it hard to obtain acceptance in soci-ety. The social acceptance and adoption of hyperloop will be affected by the potential feeling ofcontainment, together with concerns related to safety. Further, questions regarding integrationand effects on society could inflict psychological counter forces for the technology.

A general lack of understanding, knowledge and vision for the hyperloop technology and itspotential can be observed. The complex standard of hyperloop is expected to require newknowledge to be obtained, which can be seen as a barrier for potential adopters of the technol-ogy. The infrastructure integration issues and the new models required for adoption constitutesas skill boundaries and increases the perceived level of use complexity for hyperloop. And thecomplex nature of the technology has further implications as it necessitates convincing adoptersthat norms are sufficiently accounted for.

The importance of gaining recognition on a political level for emerging technologies, such ashyperloop, is emphasized in findings as significant for wider acceptance in society. However, asthe Swedish politicians can be considered hesitant regarding new technologies for infrastruc-ture, persuading them to acknowledge hyperloop could be difficult. Experimenting with newtechnologies involves high political risk, hence the low Technology Readiness Level (TRL) ofhyperloop can be seen as a determining factor for this lack of attention. It is further identifiedthat there is an absense of appropriate channels and common forums for bringing awarenessand discussions of hyperloop with politicians, restricting potential successful collaborations.Moreover, it is recognized as harder to obtain governmental subsidies for hyperloop, as adisruptive technology, in comparison to conventional technologies.

On the political level, time-consuming discussions on socio-economic benefits and the necessityof large investments is identified as likely to prolong the decision-making process of hyperloop.The political maturity in Sweden for larger infrastructure investments can be questioned andis argued to constitute a boundary for diffusion. Furthermore, it is concluded that the majorpart of the relatively limited Swedish infrastructure budget goes in to maintaining the currentsystem, limiting the opportunities for investments in new infrastructure.

Related to the Swedish transport authorities the study has found that the Swedish Trans-port Administration (ST-Administration) lacks models, institutional channels and resourcesto manage new modes of transportation. And since the ST-Administration most likely must beinvolved at some level for hyperloop to become a reality in Sweden, this is considered a signifi-cant boundary for the technology. Further accentuated by the finding that ST-Administrationcurrently has no employees dedicated on exploring the concept.

Furthermore, it has been recognized that the regulating transport authority, The SwedishTransport Agency (ST-Agency), currently lack mandate to evaluate and set up a regulatoryframework for the hyperloop system, as the technology was found insufficiently compatible withthe definition of any of the existing alternatives. Entailing that, until an extended mandateis approved by the Ministry of Enterprise and Innovation, the ST-agency does not have theauthority to regulate and approve hyperloop. And this will be a factor delaying the adoptionof the technology in Sweden.

Findings indicate that there currently is no development of or research on the hyperloop

146

technology in Sweden or the Nordic region. While this arguably can be considered a lesssignificant boundary for diffusion, it will most likely make it significantly more challenging toget industries in Sweden involved with the technology. Hence, it should be acknowledged asa limit for hyperloop in the Swedish context. Regarding research in Sweden, it seems that noindividuals nor institutions outline research proposals surrounding the technology. And furtheremphasized is that attracting research funding for hyperloop likely will be difficult since it doesnot fit any of the existing modes of transportation. The limited interest from the governmenttogether with the constraining research funding structure seems to hinder research initiativesrelated to hyperloop. As a reflection, the study has been unable to identify any currenthyperloop activities in terms of courses, seminars etc. amongst the technical Universities ofSweden, arguably affecting the understanding and interest for the technology.

Concludingly, it is identified that the combination of technology state, market acceptance andpath dependence, together with the fact that hyperloop is a completely new mode of transport,will constitute significant boundaries for introducing hyperloop in Sweden.

8.3 Can hyperloop enter the Swedish market?

From the analysis and with respect to the boundaries identified on the Swedish market, it seemsrelatively challenging for hyperloop to enter the heavily regulated Swedish market at this point.Despite this, the analysis indicates positivity in terms of a future window of opportunity for thetechnology. However, as several of the identified boundaries are expected to have high relevancewhen it comes to the potential adoption and diffusion of hyperloop in Sweden, addressing andovercoming these market boundaries will be necessary for hyperloop to enter the market.

The Swedish infrastructure market is considered to have multiple technological trajectorieswhich generate path dependency and lock-in effects hindering the diffusion of new technologiesin general, and new modes of transportation in particular. These trajectories can however bedisturbed by emerging transformational pressures. The analysis identifies that hyperloop couldhave clear advantages in terms of speed and travel time. And it has a strong environmentalposition in relation to other modes of transportation due to relatively low energy consumptionand dedication to sustainable power sources. Hence, hyperloop constitute both a technologypush and match the pressure towards more sustainable and faster transport alternatives. It isthereof reasonable that hyperloop has the potential of breaking the current dependencies.

The hyperloop concept can be considered significantly complex in multiple aspects, with im-plications such as limited compatibility. Another concern related to the early state of devel-opment is the low level of trialability available for potential adopters. However, this is notuncommon when it comes to radical disruptive innovations. And the process of developingmethods and models as well as the trialability is expected to be significantly eased once afully functioning system is in place. This will decrease the uncertainty amongst the potentialadopters and shrink the boundaries from incompatibility. The completely new infrastructureneeded for hyperloop is argued justified by the substantial benefits received from the system.Further, multiple industry sectors can be considered compatible with the technology, sectorsthat potentially could push towards embracing hyperloop.

Raising cognizance of the hyperloop development and building a public opinion for the tech-nology is identified as significant for acceptance, as well as for enabling research and getting

147

the industry involved in the technology development. Taking the concept from an idea tomaking people understand that it can become a reality takes time and funding which involvesrisks and necessitates someone stepping up willing to carry that risk. The ability to achieveacceptance is further considered related to the observability of results accomplished by thesystem. In the hyperloop context, substantial visible results have been identified. The systemis expected to have observable societal effects such as a better connected and more cohesivecommunity, with enhanced exchange. And for individual travelers, observable results such asincreased accessibility, connectivity and availability can be recognized.

It is further distinguished that there is a need for increased awareness and knowledge about thehyperloop concept amongst the dominant actors in Sweden. To approach this, the hyperloopactors needs to deploy conscious efforts targeting these actors and initiate discussions withthem. It can be argued that the previous efforts for this purpose has been misaligned withthe cultural environment in Sweden, hence it is concluded that the future efforts need to bebetter adapted to the Swedish context. To provoke interest for the hyperloop, political confer-ences, media, social media, the camber and RIFO have been identified as potential appropriatechannels to facilitating contacts and dialogues between hyperloop and members of parliament,dominant actors and researchers. And the organizations working to initiate discussions andspread knowledge of the hyperloop concept in Sweden will likely have a significant role ascommunicators between the hyperloop niche and the dominant actors in Sweden.

On a political level, a limited interest for the hyperloop technology has been acknowledged.This can be connected to the limited knowledge and understanding of the technology, as well asthe high risk involved in pursuing new technology. It seems that political maturity for initiationof larger infrastructure projects and the willingness to investigate and evaluate alternativemodes of transportation is low. However, this can be changed if the political awareness abouthyperloop is increased and the potential benefits from the system is effectively communicated.Even if a full endorsement is not received from the political level, an acknowledgement that thetechnology could reach political acceptance can spring momentum triggering activities in theresearch community as well as the industry. If no such recognition is given, the incorporatedrisk for actors to pursue hyperloop remains high and the attractiveness of investing in thetechnology is repressed.

As the state budget for infrastructure is limited in Sweden, depending on solely public funding,will restrict the diffusion of hyperloop on a short to medium term. Thus, findings indicate thata combination of private and public financing is to prefer. Further, discussions regardingsocio-economic benefits are commonly decisive for infrastructure projects in Sweden, as thismust justify public financing of the system. The study indicates that these discussions likelywill be time consuming and require improved models to accurately visualize the impacts fromhyperloop. The technology is expected to deliver significant value to society, and this togetherwith anticipated lower lifetime costs in relation to the other modes of transportation canmotivate a higher infrastructure investment. Even if the initial cost proves more expensivethan other infrastructure alternatives.

In relation to the transport authorities in Sweden, it is concluded that both the ST-Administrationand the ST-Agency most likely must partake in the process for hyperloop would become a re-ality in Sweden. This however necessitates new knowledge and competence to be obtainedwithin the ST-administration, and an extended mandate for the ST-Agency. The process of

148

solving these barriers could be initiated either by government directives or, more likely, bypressure and demand from hyperloop actors. It is identified that the tramway regulation, withsmall adjustments, can be adopted to fit the hyperloop technology and that the ST-Agencyseems to have the operational capability to regulate the technology once they get the extendedmandate.

The lack of research and development dedicated to hyperloop in Sweden is identified to haveimplications for a potential market introduction. This since it likely hinders acceptance andcommitment for the concept and the necessary knowledge is left unobtained. To overcomethis, three alternatives have been recognized. The government could promote the scientificarea, the hyperloop community could approach relevant actors with concrete suggestions, oralternatively, the relevant actors can approach the hyperloop companies with the intent toassist in the pursuit of realizing the technology. The analysis further argues that partaking inthe development could have significant benefits in the form of enhanced strategic knowledge,attracted foreign investments as well as improved innovative-position of the region. Severalindustry sectors in Sweden possess capabilities of delivering valuable contributions to the de-velopment of the system. Companies within these sectors could benefit greatly from partakingin both developing and building the technology. If R&D activities gets initiated in Sweden,this is expected to have significant positive effects on the potential for market introduction.

To address the question regarding whether hyperloop can enter the Swedish market, it isconcluded that, if hyperloop manage to reach the performances predicted for the system, thetechnology has the capability of breaking the current market dependencies. While severalbarriers for diffusion on the Swedish market has been acknowledged, it is reasoned that theycan be successfully managed within a short to medium time frame and that no challenges seemsimpossible to overcome for hyperloop in the Nordic region. For that to happen however, severalactivities and forces must align between actors in Sweden and the hyperloop community. Themost urgent of which is increasing the understanding and raising cognizance of the hyperloopconcept, especially among the Swedish government, authorities and industries. All thingsconsidered, it is concluded that hyperloop can enter the Swedish market, but the process ofdoing so will be time consuming.

8.4 What determines if hyperloop can emerge as a viable transport alter-native in Sweden?

When addressing the question regarding what determines if hyperloop can emerge as a viabletransport alternative in Sweden, it is necessary to consider multiple aspects both related tothe technology and the Swedish market. With respect to this and with a foundation in theanalysis and the conclusions derived in the three sub questions, the following conclusions canbe drawn about hyperloop in the Swedish context.

The viability of all modes of transportation is highly dependent on their relative attractiveness.In the context of hyperloop, clear advantages in relation to the contemporary modes can beidentified in the categories travel time, environmental sustainability, functionality and lifetimecosts. There are however still aspects of the technology that is critically uncertain. Especiallyemphasized is the infrastructure costs and passenger comfort, where the low maturity of hy-perloop provides insufficient knowledge of the performance. It is possible to, from the analysis,derive that hyperloop most likely will be a highly competitive alternative to the current modes,

149

especially as the passenger capacity can be considered sufficient in the Swedish context.

Hyperloop is expected to have societal effects such as a more cohesive and better-connectedcommunity. Increasing the exchange, regional labor markets as well as the opportunity tosolve the lack of residences in the larger cities in a climate smart way. For travelers, hyperloopwould entail increased accessibility, connectivity and availability, both related to geographicalregions and the mode itself. And it is possible to distinguish that the technology likely will bemore reliable than current alternatives. Furthermore, the analysis argues that partaking in thedevelopment and building a test facility could have significant benefits in the form of enhancedstrategic knowledge, attracted foreign investments as well as improved innovative-position ofthe region.

Observing the Swedish transport network, it is recognized that there is a need to expand thecapacity. Especially on the rail network, where disturbances and delays in the daily operationsare noticeable consequences from the high utilization. Research indicates that, while theseissues can be eased by incremental improvements in the short perspective, this will mostlikely be insufficient in longer terms. Subsequently, an increasing demand for more sustainabletransport alternatives can be identified. A view that is supported by both governmental goalsand the general opinion amongst the population. Hence, environmental sustainability can andshould be considered to constitute a transformational pressure which will be a crucial driverfor the development of the transport sector.

The insufficient current capacity and the pressure towards a more sustainable transport sectoropens a possible window of opportunity for new transport alternatives. However, for alternativemodes like hyperloop to reach diffusion, this will likely be insufficient by its own. It will alsobe necessary to prove competitive to the current alternatives, especially in the aspect of traveltime. An aspect where, as mentioned previously, hyperloop is expected to possess a relativeadvantage.

The factors that likely will prolong a potential adoption of hyperloop in Sweden relates tothe relative complexity of the system, its limited compatibility with the existing practices andthe low maturity of the technology. The complexity and its low level of maturity makes thesystem, and the potential of it, hard to comprehend. For hyperloop to gain wider acceptance,all levels of potential adopters need to be convinced about the technology’s feasibility. Re-garding compatibility, it is concluded that hyperloop has a limited fit to both the normativeand practical side of the expression. Particularly noticeable in this characteristic are the in-frastructure integration issues and the new models required for adoption, factors that needsto be solved to make hyperloop attractive in Sweden. In the final aspect, trialability, it isconcluded that hyperloop currently offers limited opportunities for testing the technology ona restricted scale, as the nature of the concept necessitates substantial investment, risk andcommitment for potential adopters. This will however be significantly eased once a full-scalesystem is realized.

Altogether it can be identified that hyperloop, if the technology reaches its predicted per-formance, will have significant relative advantages and observable effects in the relation tocontemporary modes of transportation. Further, a noticeable window of opportunity, sprungfrom capacity shortages and pressure towards environmental sustainability, seems to exist onthe Swedish market. This window could be capitalized upon and justify hyperloop in the

150

Swedish context, especially as the technology parallels to the historical trend pushing towardsfaster transportation. The current state of the technology does however come with implica-tions, as the maturity of the system so far is insufficient to decrease uncertainty amongst thepotential adopters. Hence, the hyperloop companies must therefore prove the concept feasibleand increase the maturity of the system to gain sufficient acceptance and recognition, and thiswill be the prominent determiner of hyperloops viability in Sweden.

As a final note, it is concluded that the hyperloop concept have the capabilities and charac-teristics necessary to be determined as a viable transport alternative in Sweden, and if theconcept vision is realized, it will progress transportation in to a new era and transform societyforever, with a new perspective on distance.

8.5 Implications, Sustainability & Ethical Considerations

This section provides a brief description of the academic and managerial implication, com-plemented by the ethical considerations and the aspects of sustainability of the study. Theimplications further provides insights to several interesting fields of future research which willbe presented in the forthcoming section Future Research.

Academic implications

By providing a holistic, critically evaluated, assessment of the compatibility of hyperloop on theSwedish market, as well as providing insights to if hyperloop could become a viable transportsolution in Sweden, this study contributes to the academic community by studying the specificperspectives of the Swedish transport market and its requirements and demand for alternativetransport solutions.

Beyond the specific context, the analytical contribution, in terms of analyzing the empirical datagathered, could also be applicable for other disruptive technologies in their pursuit of reachingmarket diffusion in large socio-technical systems. Hence, several synergies and similarities canbe drawn from this study, which contributes to the field of how disruptive technologies emergeon the market.

Managerial implications

This study has multiple managerial implications. Firstly, it could be used in a managerialsetting for actors involved with the hyperloop technology or actors that has an interest tobecome involved with it. This includes both actors in Sweden, as well as external actors.Secondly, findings from the study could be used as a reference for internal or external manage-ment projects to increase the awareness and understanding of hyperloop, and in particular ina context of Sweden. The study could therefore be of interest for all parties that potentiallywould be involved with the process of realizing the hyperloop system in the market, and theseimplications goes beyond the context of the Swedish market. It could hence be applicable forother cases than the hyperloop case that has been studied in this thesis. Furthermore, thispaper could serve as reference for authorities and politicians in Sweden to understand andimprove their work with disruptive technologies.

151

In summary, the study constitutes a source of information for several aspects that managersor actors could find of interest:

• Information about the hyperloop concept and its performance

• Recent progression of the hyperloop technology and how technically mature the conceptis

• Challenges and concerns still to be solved

• Dynamics of the Swedish transport market

• The Swedish government and authorities attitude to hyperloop

• Boundaries that exist on the Swedish market for hyperloop

• First steps to overcome these boundaries

• Indicators that defines hyperloop to emerge as a viable transport alternative in Sweden

Sustainability & Ethical Considerations

Throughout this study, ethical considerations have made the process to adhering to the normsof scientific work. In that process, the aspects of remain impartial to the processes has beenan important aspect. Despite the specific case study of the hyperloop concept, and hence theincreased risk for biases, all the gathered empirical data and analysis have been performed withan impartial and as technically neutral mindset as possible. Moreover, as the research includedseveral interviews, they were conducted in such a way that people’s rights was not violated.It was optional for all the respondents to remain anonymous and to review the data before itwas published. The gathered data, both literature and interviews, was managed objectivelyand cross related to reduce the possible biases of not having a technically neutral agenda.

As the hyperloop concept is a potential new mode of transportation, it implies several aspectsof sustainability. Regarding environmental sustainability the study implies that higher effi-ciency and a fully electric transport system are two of the main environmental implications ofhyperloop. Hence, it is argued that hyperloop could have substantial positive effects on theenvironment. When it comes to the social sustainability, the study indicates that if hyperloopwould reach a market diffusion, it would transform the transport market and hence the peopleaffected by it significantly. It would most likely change the way citizens’ travel by coveringlarger distances in shorter travel times, and henceforth increase connectivity in wider geograph-ical regions. This has social implications such as increased accessibility to work, services andresidences for people nearby the system. Lastly, the hyperloop concept possess potential foreconomical sustainability, as it is argued to induce significantly improved socio-economic ben-efits, making the available resources in the society utilized in a more efficient way. Somethingthat is left for further exploration by future research.

8.6 Future Research

Given the large and overarching scope of this research, several interesting areas are left formore thorough future exploration. In this segment perspectives such as the relation between

152

the hyperloop and the dominant actors on the Swedish market respectively would be interestingto examine more in depth. However, the analytical contribution for how disruptive technologiescould reach market diffusion in large socio-technical systems could also be applicable for furtherresearch on other markets then Sweden, and both for the hyperloop technology as well as othertechnologies that aims at breaking through the boundaries of the existing infrastructure.

Moreover, it could be interesting to investigate each of the identified boundaries individuallyand outline the process of overcoming them. In that line, academic implications indicate thatcontributions can be made by developing or adapting models to estimate the socio-economicbenefits of the hyperloop technology. In addition to this, more accurate and through calcu-lations on how competitive hyperloop is in relation to other alternative modes on the marketand what this would actually socio-economically imply would be of interest.

As a final step towards a potential diffusion of the hyperloop system, developing market entrystrategies as well as implementation plans for the concept could be of interest for the businesscase and to successfully prove it feasible for commercial application.

153

References

Abernathy, William J and Kim B Clark (1985). “Innovation: Mapping the winds of creativedestruction”. In: Research policy 14.1, pp. 3–22.

Andersen, Allan Dahl (2014). “No transition without transmission: HVDC electricity infras-tructure as an enabler for renewable energy?” In: Environmental Innovation and SocietalTransitions 13, pp. 75–95.

Arthur, W Brian (1988). “Competing technologies: an overview. G. Dosi, C”. In: TechnicalChange and Economic Theory. London: Pinter, pp. 590–607.

Arup et al. (2017). “Main report: Hyperloop in The Netherlands”. In: p. 48.

Bansal, Sangeeta and Shubhashis Gangopadhyay (2003). “Tax/subsidy policies in the pres-ence of environmentally aware consumers”. In: Journal of Environmental Economics andManagement 45.2, pp. 333–355.

Blomkvist, dahmen (2016). A Dynamic Mind. Perspectives on Industrial Dynamics in Honourof Staffan Laestadius. KTH.

Blomkvist, Par and Anette Hallin (2014). Metod for teknologer. Examensarbete enligt 4-fasmodellen. Studentlitteratur.

Blomkvist, Par and Jesper Larsson (2013). “An analytical framework for common-pool resource–large technical system (CPR-LTS) constellations”. In: International Journal of the Commons7.1.

Bose, Tarun Kanti (2012). “Application of Fishbone Analysis for Evaluating Supply Chainand Business Process-A Case Study on the St James Hospital”. In: International Journal ofManaging Value and Supply Chains (IJMVSC) 3.2, pp. 17–24.

Bower, Joseph L and Clayton M Christensen (1995). “Disruptive technologies: catching thewave”. In:

Brunnermeier, Smita B and Mark A Cohen (2003). “Determinants of environmental innovationin US manufacturing industries”. In: Journal of environmental economics and management45.2, pp. 278–293.

Carlsson, Bo and Rolf GH Henriksson (1991). Development blocks and industrial transforma-tion: the Dahmenian approach to economic development. Industrial Institute for Economicand Social Research, pp. 126–148.

Chen, Chialin (2001). “Design for the environment: A quality-based model for green productdevelopment”. In: Management Science 47.2, pp. 250–263.

Christensen, Clayton M and Michael Overdorf (2000). “Meeting the challenge of disruptivechange”. In: Harvard business review 78.2, pp. 66–77.

Collingridge, David (1980). “The social control of technology”. In:

Coombs, Rod, Paolo Saviotti, and Vivien Walsh (1987). Economics and technological change.Rowman & Littlefield.

Council Directive (1996). “96/48/EC of 23 July 1996 on the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system”. In: Official Journal L 235.17, p. 09.

154

Curry, Andrew and Christina Hughes (2012). The Future of Sustainable Transport in Europe.The Futures Company, Available at:https://uk.kantar.com/media/122799/ford-the-future-of-sustainable-transport-in-europe-november2012.pdf (Accessed: 2017-11-02).

Dahmen, Erik (1988). “‘Development blocks’ in industrial economics”. In: Scandinavian Eco-nomic History Review 36.1, pp. 3–14.

Dahmen, Erik (2016). “Erik Dahmen and industrial dynamics”, in A Dynamic Mind. Perspec-tives on Industrial Dynamics in Honour of Staffan Laestadius.

Damanpour, Fariborz and Marguerite Schneider (2008). “Characteristics of innovation andinnovation adoption in public organizations: Assessing the role of managers”. In: Journal ofpublic administration research and theory 19.3, pp. 495–522.

Davies, Alex (2017). INDIA JUST MIGHT BE GETTING A HYPERLOOP. Wired, Availableat: https://www.wired.com/story/india-hyperloop-transportation-technologies/(Accessed: 2017-10-10).

Dearing, James W (2009). “Applying diffusion of innovation theory to intervention develop-ment”. In: Research on social work practice 19.5, pp. 503–518.

Decker, Kenneth et al. (2017). “Conceptual Feasibility Study of the Hyperloop Vehicle forNext-Generation Transport”. In: 55th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, p. 0221.

Del Rio Gonzalez, Pablo (2004). “Public policy and clean technology promotion. The synergybetween environmental economics and evolutionary economics of technological change”. In:International Journal of Sustainable Development 7.2, pp. 200–216.

Dittrich, Koen, Geert Duysters, and Ard-Pieter de Man (2007). “Strategic repositioning bymeans of alliance networks: The case of IBM”. In: Research Policy 36.10, pp. 1496–1511.

Dolfsma, Wilfred and Loet Leydesdorff (2009). “Lock-in and break-out from technologicaltrajectories: Modeling and policy implications”. In: Technological Forecasting and SocialChange 76.7, pp. 932–941.

Dosi, Giovanni (1982). “Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: a suggestedinterpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change”. In: Research policy11.3, p. 152.

Economic Times (2017). Virgin Hyperloop in pact with Karnataka, Maharashtra for studyon new transport mode. Available at: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/infrastructure/virgin-hyperloop-in-pact-with-karnataka-maharashtra-

for-study-on-new-transport-mode/articleshow/61674741.cms (Accessed: 2018-02-13).

Eisenhardt, Kathleen M (1989). “Building theories from case study research”. In: Academy ofmanagement review 14.4, pp. 532–550.

Elzen, Boelie and Anna Wieczorek (2005). “Transitions towards sustainability through systeminnovation”. In: Technological Forecasting and Social Change 72.6, pp. 651–661.

Enarsson, Leif (1998). “Evaluation of suppliers: how to consider the environment”. In: Inter-national Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 28.1, pp. 5–17.

155

Finger, Matthias, John Groenewegen, and Rolf Kunneke (2005). “The quest for coherencebetween institutions and technologies in infrastructures”. In: Journal of Network industries4, pp. 227–259.

Freeman, C and L Soete (1997). “The Economics of Industrial Innovation 3rd edition MITPress”. In: Cambridge, MA.

Geels, Frank W (2005). “Processes and patterns in transitions and system innovations: refiningthe co-evolutionary multi-level perspective”. In: Technological forecasting and social change72.6, pp. 681–696.

Geels, Frank W. (2002). “Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes:a multi-level perspective and a case-study”. In: Research Policy 31.8, pp. 1257–1274.

Geels, Frank W. (2004). “From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: In-sights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory”. In: ResearchPolicy 33.6, pp. 897–920.

Geenhuizen, Marina S van, David V Gibson, and Manuel V Heitor (2005). Regional developmentand conditions for innovation in the network society. Purdue University Press.

Gonzalez-Gonzalez, Esther and Soledad Nogues (2017). “Railways of the Future: Evolution andprospects of High-Speed, MAGLEV and Hyperloop (1st Part)”. In: DYNA INGENIERIAE INDUSTRIA 92, pp. 371–373.

Gonzalez-Gonzalez, Esther and Soledad Nogues (Sept. 2017). “Railways of the Future: Evolu-tion and prospects of High-Speed, MAGLEV and Hyperloop (2nd Part)”. In: 92, pp. 483–485.

Grubler, Arnulf (1996). “Time for a change: on the patterns of diffusion of innovation”. In:Daedelus 125.3, pp. 19–42.

Hall, Bronwyn H and Beethika Khan (2003). Adoption of new technology. Tech. rep. Nationalbureau of economic research.

Hardt (2018a). About us. Available at: https://www.hardtglobalmobility.com/about/(Accessed: 2018-02-07).

Hardt (2018b). Build 5 km long high-speed test track for hyperloop in The Netherlands. Avail-able at: https://hardt.global/sub/press/build-5-km-long-high-speed-test-track-hyperloop-netherlands/ (Accessed: 2018-02-07).

Hardt (2018c). Careers. Available at: http://www.hardtglobalmobility.com/careers/vacancy-businesss-analyst-intern/ (Accessed: 2018-02-13).

Hardt (2018d). Dutch House of Representatives wants financing of hyperloop test facility. Avail-able at: https://hardt.global/sub/press/dutch-house-representatives-wants-financing-hyperloop-test-facility/ (Accessed: 2018-02-07).

Hartley, Jean (2005). “Innovation in governance and public services: Past and present”. In:Public money and management 25.1, pp. 27–34.

Hippel, E. von (1988). The Sources of Innovation New York. Oxford University Press.

Hoogma, Remco (2002). Experimenting for sustainable transport: the approach of strategicniche management. Taylor & Francis.

156

Horbach, Jens (2008). “Determinants of environmental innovation—New evidence from Ger-man panel data sources”. In: Research Policy 37.1, pp. 163–173.

Hughes, Thomas P (1983). “Networks of Power: Electric supply systems in the US, Englandand Germany, 1880-1930”. In: Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.

Hyperloop Transportation Technologies (2016a). Agreement signed with Abu Dhabi Departmentof Transport. Available at: http://www.hyperloop.global/progress (Accessed: 2018-05-03).

Hyperloop Transportation Technologies (2016b). Hyperloop Transportation Technologies ReachesAgreement with Slovakia. Available at: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/hyperloop-transportation-technologies-reaches-agreement-with-slovakia-300234762.

html (Accessed: 2018-05-03).

Hyperloop Transportation Technologies (2017a). The Office of His Highness Sheikh Falah BinZayed Al Nahyan announces strategic partnership agreement with Hyperloop TransportationTechnologies. Available at: https://www.zawya.com/uae/en/story/The_Office_of_His_Highness_Sheikh_Falah_Bin_Zayed_Al_Nahyan_announces_strategic_partnership_

agreement_with_Hyperloop_Transportation_Technologies- ZAWYA20170122153231/

(Accessed: 2018-05-03).

Hyperloop Transportation Technologies (2017b). Toulouse welcomes Hyperloop TransportationTechnologies to Europe’s Aerospace Valley with new facilities. Available at: https://www.prnewswire.com/news- releases/toulouse- welcomes- hyperloop- transportation-

technologies-to-europes-aerospace-valley-with-new-facilities-300395767.html

(Accessed: 2018-05-03).

Hyperloop Transportation Technologies (2018a). About us. Available at: http://www.hyperloop.global/about (Accessed: 2018-02-07).

Hyperloop Transportation Technologies (2018b). Great Lakes Hyperloop. Available at: https://www.greatlakeshyperloop.com (Accessed: 2018-05-03).

Hyperloop Transportation Technologies (2018c). Hyperloop Transportation Technologies andNOACA Expand Cleveland to Chicago Project with Top Regional Organizations. Availableat: https : / / www . prnewswire . com / news - releases / hyperloop - transportation -

technologies - and - noaca - expand - cleveland - to - chicago - project - with - top -

regional-organizations-300604283.html (Accessed: 2018-05-03).

Hyperloop Transportation Technologies (2018d). Hyperloop Transportation Technologies movesforward with first commercial hyperloop system in the UAE. Available at: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/hyperloop-transportation-technologies-moves-

forward-with-first-commercial-hyperloop-system-in-the-uae-300632281.html

(Accessed: 2018-05-03).

Hyperloop Transportation Technologies (2018e). Hyperloop Transportation Technologies opensfirst global innovation center for logistics, XO Square, in Brazil. Available at: https://www . prnewswire . com / news - releases / hyperloop - transportation - technologies -

opens-first-global-innovation-center-for-logistics-xo-square-in-brazil-

300625574.html (Accessed: 2018-05-03).

157

Hyperloop Transportation Technologies (2018f). Hyperloop Transportation Technologies opensfirst global innovation center for logistics, XO Square, in Brazil. Available at: https://www . prnewswire . com / news - releases / hyperloop - transportation - technologies -

begins-construction-on-worlds-first-full-scale-passenger--freight-system-

300628928.html (Accessed: 2018-05-03).

Hyperloop-One (2016). FS Links Case Study. Available at: https://hyperloop-one.com/fs-links-case-study (Accessed: 2018-05-14).

Hyperloop-One (2017). FACTS and FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS. Available at: https://hyperloop-one.com/facts-frequently-asked-questions (Accessed: 2017-10-10).

Hyperloop-One (2018a). DP World and Virgin Hyperloop One Introduce DP World Cargospeed.Available at: https://hyperloop-one.com/dp-world-and-virgin-hyperloop-one-introduce-dp-world-cargospeed (Accessed: 2018-05-02).

Hyperloop-One (2018b). Hyperloop prototype makes global debut in Dubai. Available at: https://www.khaleejtimes.com/news/transport/video-rta-unveils-hyperloop-prototype-

in-uae-innovation-month- (Accessed: 2018-05-02).

Hyperloop-One (2018c). Indian State of Maharashtra Announces Their Intent to Build FirstHyperloop Route in India and Signs Historic Agreement with Virgin Hyperloop One. Avail-able at: https://hyperloop-one.com/indian-state-maharashtra-announces-their-intent- build- first- hyperloop- route- india- and- signs- historic- agreement-

virgin-hyperloop-one (Accessed: 2018-05-02).

ITF, International Transportation Forum (2009). Transport for a Global Economy Challengesand Opportunities in the Downturn: International transport forum 2009. Available at: https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/09highlights.pdf (Accessed: 2017-11-02).

Jaffe, Adam B, Richard G Newell, and Robert N Stavins (2002). “Environmental policy andtechnological change”. In: Environmental and resource economics 22.1-2, pp. 41–69.

Jennings, Rick (2017). Hyperloop One Defines the Future of Transport in Dubai. Availableat: https://hyperloop-one.com/hyperloop-one-defines-future-transport-dubai(Accessed: 2018-02-07).

Jonsson, Daniel (2000). “Sustainable infrasystem synergies: A conceptual framework”. In: Jour-nal of Urban Technology 7.3, pp. 81–104.

Kagan, Robert A, Neil Gunningham, and Dorothy Thornton (2003). “Explaining corporateenvironmental performance: how does regulation matter?” In: Law & Society Review 37.1,pp. 51–90.

Kaijser, Arne (2004). “The dynamics of infrasystems. Lessons from history”. In: Proceedingsof the 6th International Summer Academy on Technology Studies.

Kaiser, Karen (2009). “Protecting Respondent Confidentiality in Qualitative Research”. In:

Karakaya, Emrah (2015). “Diffusion of dynamic innovations: A case study of residential solarPV systems”. PhD thesis. KTH Royal Institute of Technology.

Kemp, Rene (1994). “Technology and the transition to environmental sustainability: The prob-lem of technological regime shifts”. In: Futures 26.10, pp. 1023–1046.

158

Kemp, Rene, Johan Schot, and Remco Hoogma (1998). “Regime shifts to sustainability throughprocesses of niche formation: the approach of strategic niche management”. In: Technologyanalysis & strategic management 10.2, pp. 175–198.

Kerin, Roger A, P Rajan Varadarajan, and Robert A Peterson (1992). “First-mover advan-tage: A synthesis, conceptual framework, and research propositions”. In: The Journal ofMarketing, pp. 33–52.

Kleindorfer, Paul R, Kalyan Singhal, and Luk N Wassenhove (2005). “Sustainable operationsmanagement”. In: Production and operations management 14.4, pp. 482–492.

KPMG (2016). Pre-feasibility study Stockholm – Helsinki using Hyperloop One technology Shortsummary. Available at: https://home.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2016/07/fs-links-pre-feasibility-study-summary.pdf (Accessed: 2018-05-14).

Krausz, Sam and Kevin Honold (2016). “The Hyperloop: A New Frontier of Travel”. In: English1001.

Linton, Jonathan D (2002). “Forecasting the market diffusion of disruptive and discontinuousinnovation”. In: IEEE Transactions on engineering management 49.4, pp. 365–374.

Loorbach, Derk, Niki Frantzeskaki, and Wil Thissen (2010). “Introduction to the special sec-tion: Infrastructures and transitions”. In: Technological Forecasting and Social Change 77.8,pp. 1195–1202.

Mack, Erik (2017). Take a first look inside a Hyperloop passenger capsule. Available at: https://www.cnet.com/news/hyperloop-transportation-technologies-passenger-capsule-

elon-musk/ (Accessed: 2017-10-10).

Mankins, John C (1995). “Technology readiness levels”. In: White Paper, April 6.

Mokyr, Joel (1992). The lever of riches: Technological creativity and economic progress. OxfordUniversity Press.

Musk, Elon (2013). Hyperloop alpha. Available at:http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/hyperloop_alpha-20130812.pdf (Accessed: 2017-10-08).

Nagy, Delmer, Joseph Schuessler, and Alan Dubinsky (2016). “Defining and identifying dis-ruptive innovations”. In: Industrial Marketing Management 57, pp. 119–126.

Nelson, Richard R and Sidney G Winter (1977). “In search of useful theory of innovation”. In:Research policy 6.1, p. 57.

Nikitas, Alexandros et al. (2017). “How Can Autonomous and Connected Vehicles, Electromo-bility, BRT, Hyperloop, Shared Use Mobility and Mobility-As-A-Service Shape TransportFutures for the Context of Smart Cities?” In: Urban Science 1.4, p. 36.

O’Brien, Christopher (1999). “Sustainable production–a new paradigm for a new millennium”.In: International Journal of Production Economics 60, pp. 1–7.

Opgenoord, Max MJ and Philip C Caplan (2017). “On the Aerodynamic Design of the Hyper-loop Concept”. In: 35th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, p. 3740.

Palacin, Roberto (2016). “Hyperloop, the electrification of mobility, and the future of railtravel”. In: IEEE Electrification Magazine 4.3, pp. 4–51.

159

Parsons Brinckerhoff (2012). Comparison of Providing the Equivalent Capacity to HighSpeedRail through Other Modes. Available at: http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/about/business_plans/BPlan_2012CompareEquivalentCapacity.pdf (Accessed: 2018-05-15).

Patten, Christopher and Henriette Wallen Warner (2015). “Tekniska system: Krav vid inforandeav ny teknik i forarmiljoer inom alla trafikslag”. In: pp. 1–52.

Peterson, Steve (2010). “Airlines 2020: Substitution and commoditization”. In: Travel & Trans-portation, p. 24.

Porter, Michael E and Claas Van der Linde (1995). “Toward a new conception of the environ-mentcompetitiveness relationship”. In: Journal of economic perspectives 9.4, pp. 97–118.

Regeringskansliet (2017). Mal for transporter och infrastruktur. Available at: http://www.regeringen.se/regeringens-politik/transporter-och-infrastruktur/mal-for-

transporter-och-infrastruktur/ (Accessed: 2017-11-10).

Rıo Gonzalez, Pablo del (2009). “The empirical analysis of the determinants for environmentaltechnological change: A research agenda”. In: Ecological Economics 68.3, pp. 861–878.

Rosenberg, Nathan (1972). “Factors affecting the diffusion of technology”. In: Explorations ineconomic history 10.1, p. 3.

Ross, Philip E (2016). “Hyperloop: No pressure”. In: IEEE Spectrum 53.1, pp. 51–54.

Schot, Johan and Frank W Geels (2007). “Niches in evolutionary theories of technical change”.In: Journal of Evolutionary Economics 17.5, pp. 605–622.

Schot, Johan and Frank W. Geels (2008). “Strategic niche management and sustainable inno-vation journeys: theory, findings, research agenda, and policy”. In: Technology Analysis &Strategic Management 20.5, pp. 537–554.

Schulz, William et al. (2017). “A6 2 Safety Concerns over Hyperloop”. In: Physics SpecialTopics 16.1.

Scientific Research Council, Vetenskapsradet (1996). Forskningsetiska principer inom humanist-isksamhallsvetenskaplig forskning.

Shaheen, Susan A and Timothy E Lipman (2007). “Reducing greenhouse emissions and fuelconsumption: sustainable approaches for surface transportation”. In: Iatss Research 31.1,pp. 6–20.

Sonnenwald, Diane H, Kelly L Maglaughlin, and Mary C Whitton (2001). “Using innovationdiffusion theory to guide collaboration technology evaluation: work in progress”. In: IEEE,pp. 114–119.

SpaceX (2018a). About us. Available at: http://www.spacex.com/about (Accessed: 2018-02-07).

SpaceX (2018b). SpaceX hyperloop. Available at: http://www.spacex.com/hyperloop (Ac-cessed: 2018-02-07).

Stansfeld, Stephen A and Mark P Matheson (2003). “Noise pollution: non-auditory effects onhealth”. In: British medical bulletin 68.1, pp. 243–257.

160

Sun, Xiaoqian, Yu Zhang, and Sebastian Wandelt (2017). “Air Transport versus High-SpeedRail: An Overview and Research Agenda”. In: Journal of Advanced Transportation 2017.

Sundin, Mathias et al. (2016). “Hyperloop i Sverige”. In: Sveriges Riksdag.

Sverigeforhandlingen (2016). Sammanfattning av Hoghastighetsjarnvagens finansiering och kom-mersiella forutsattningar. Available at: http://media.sverigeforhandlingen.se/2016/01/Sammanfattning-delrapport-webben.pdf (Accessed: 2018-01-31).

Sverigeforhandlingen (2017). Slutrapport fran Sverigeforhandlingen. Available at: http://

media.sverigeforhandlingen.se/2017/12/Slutrapport-fran-Sverigeforhandlingen-

SOU-2017_107.pdf (Accessed: 2018-01-30).

Sverigeforhandlingen (2018). About us. Available at: http://sverigeforhandlingen.se/om-oss/ (Accessed: 2018-02-13).

Taylor, Catherine L, David J Hyde, and Lawrence C Barr (2016). Hyperloop CommercialFeasibility Analysis. John A. Volpe National Transportation System Center.

Thomond, Peter and Fiona Lettice (2002). “Disruptive innovation explored”. In: Cranfield Uni-versity, Cranfield, England. Presented at: 9th IPSE International Conference on ConcurrentEngineering: Research and Applications (CE2002).

Tidd, Joe and John Bessant (2009). Managing innovation integrating technological, market andorganizational change. Vol. 4th edition. John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

Timmons, H (2014). China’s high-speed rail is so popular, it’s hurting the domestic airlineindustry. Available at: https://qz.com/193556/chinas- high- speed- rail- is- so-

popular-its-hurting-the-domestic-airline-industry/ (Accessed: 2017-10-10).

Tongur, Stefan and Mats Engwall (2014). “The business model dilemma of technology shifts”.In: Technovation 34.9, pp. 525–535.

Tongur, Stefan and Mats Engwall (2017). “Exploring window of opportunity dynamics ininfrastructure transformation”. In: Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 25,pp. 82–93.

Tornatzky, Louis G and Katherine J Klein (1982). “Innovation characteristics and innovationadoption-implementation: A meta-analysis of findings”. In: IEEE Transactions on engineer-ing management 1, pp. 28–45.

Trafik Analys (2018). Luftfart 2017. Available at: https://www.trafa.se/globalassets/statistik/luftfart/2017/statistikblad_luftfart-2017.pdf (Accessed: 2018-05-15).

Trafikanalys (2018a). About Transport Analysis. Available at: https://www.trafa.se/en/pages/about-transport-analysis/ (Accessed: 2018-03-06).

Trafikanalys (2018b). Our Organization. Available at: https://www.trafa.se/en/pages/our-organisation/ (Accessed: 2018-03-06).

Trafikverket (2018a). About us. Available at: https://www.trafikverket.se/en/startpage/about-us/Trafikverket/ (Accessed: 2018-03-06).

Trafikverket (2018b). How we procure. Available at: https://www.trafikverket.se/en/startpage/suppliers/Procurement/How-we-procure/ (Accessed: 2018-03-06).

161

TransPod (2018a). About TransPod. Available at: https://transpod.com/en/company/

about-transpod/ (Accessed: 2018-05-02).

TransPod (2018b). TransPod Releases Initial Cost Study for Hyperloop System in Toronto-to-Windsor Corridor. Available at: https://transpod.com/en/press- room/press-

releases/transpod- releases- initial- cost- study- hyperloop- system- toronto-

windsor-corridor/ (Accessed: 2018-05-02).

Transportstyrelsen (2018a). About us. Available at: https://www.transportstyrelsen.se/en/About-us/ (Accessed: 2018-03-07).

Transportstyrelsen (2018b). Om Transportstyrelsen. Available at: https://www.transportstyrelsen.se/sv/Om-transportstyrelsen/ (Accessed: 2018-03-07).

TU Delft (2018a). Delft - Media. Available at: https://delfthyperloop.nl/en/blog/3/(Accessed: 2018-02-07).

TU Delft (2018b). Delft - Partners. Available at: https://delfthyperloop.nl/en/partners(Accessed: 2018-02-07).

TU Delft (2018c). Delft - team. Available at: http://delfthyperloop.nl/team.html (Ac-cessed: 2018-02-07).

TU Delft (2018d). Delft Hyperloop and ERIKS work on the future of transportation. Availableat: https://delfthyperloop.nl/en/partners (Accessed: 2018-02-07).

Unruh, Gregory C (2000). “Understanding carbon lock-in”. In: Energy policy 28.12, pp. 817–830.

Unruh, Gregory C (2002). “Escaping carbon lock-in”. In: Energy policy 30.4, pp. 317–325.

Van Essen, Huib et al. (2011). “External Costs of Transport in Europe, Update Study for2008”. In: Delft, CE Delft, Publication code 11.50, p. 161.

Van Goeverden, CD, Dimitris Milakis, and Milan Janic (2017). “Performances of the HL (Hy-perloop) transport system”. In: 2017 BIVEC-GIBET Transport Research Days.

Virgin Hyperloop One (2016). Hyperloop and the Hyperefficient Port. Available at: https://hyperloop-one.com/blog/hyperefficient (Accessed: 2018-02-07).

Virgin Hyperloop One (2018). Our Story - Timeline. Available at: https://hyperloop-

one.com/our-story (Accessed: 2018-02-07).

Werner, Max, Klaus Eissing, and Sebastian Langton (2016). “Shared value potential of trans-porting cargo via hyperloop”. In: Frontiers in built environment 2, p. 17.

Wong, Kam Cheong (2011). “Using an Ishikawa diagram as a tool to assist memory andretrieval of relevant medical cases from the medical literature”. In: Journal of medical casereports 5.1, p. 120.

Yalabik, Baris and Richard J. Fairchild (2011). “Customer, regulatory, and competitive pres-sure as drivers of environmental innovation”. In: International Journal of Production Eco-nomics 131.2, pp. 519–527.

Yang, Yi et al. (2017). “Aerodynamic Simulation of High-Speed Capsule in the HyperloopSystem”. In: 35th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, p. 3741.

162

Ziman, John (2003). Technological innovation as an evolutionary process. Cambridge UniversityPress.

Interviews

Deputy Research Director at VTI (2018). Sofia Lundberg, Deputy Research Director, VTI.Unpublished interview. Interview performed Mars 5th at Trafikverket’s office.

Head of Technology and Railway at ST-Agency (2018). Maria Fahlen, Head of the sectionTechnology and Railway, the Swedish Transport Agency. Unpublished interview. Interviewperformed April 16th via telephone.

Lawyers of Setterwalls (2018). Ulf Djurberg, Anna Lundberg and Lorentz Reige, Head of EUand competition law department, Setterwalls. Unpublished interview. Interview performedApril 27th at Setterwalls office.

Member of the parliament (L) (2018). Mathias Sundin, Member of the Swedish Parliament (L),Member of the Swedish Committee on Tax and Alternate Member of the Swedish Committeeon Transport. Unpublished interview. Interview performed Mars 23th via telephone.

Member of the Swedish Parliament (M) (2018). Maria Stockhaus, Member of the parliament(M), Member of the Swedish delegation in the Nordic Council and Member of the SwedishCommittee on Education. Unpublished interview. Interview performed Mars 27th at Riks-dagshuset.

Professor in Rail Vehicle Dynamics (2018). Sebastian Stichel, Professor in Rail Vehicle Dynam-ics, KTH, The Royal Institute of Technology. Unpublished interview. Interview performedMars 9th at KTH.

Professor in Transport Economics (2018). Folke Snickars, Professor in regional planning withexpertise in socioeconomics, KTH, The Royal Institute of Technology. Unpublished interview.Interview performed Mars 13th at KTH.

Representative of FS links (2018). Marten Frojdo, Project Manager for FS Links. Unpublishedinterview. Interview performed February 22th at the Swedish office of PA consulting.

Representative of Hyperloop Sweden (2018). Rikard Windh, Board of Directors, HyperloopSweden. Unpublished interview. Interview performed Mars 27th via Skype.

Representative of Ramboll (2018). Malcolm Sjodahl, Head of Business Development, Ramboll.Unpublished interview. Interview performed Mars 26th at Rambolls office.

Researcher in Transport Planing (2018). Oskar Froidh, Researcher at the Division of TransportPlanning, Economy and Engineering, KTH, The Royal Institute of Technology. Unpublishedinterview. Interview performed Mars 22th at KTH.

Senior Adviser at ST-Administration (2018). Bjorn Hasselgren, Researcher in transport infras-tructure and economic history. Unpublished interview. Interview performed February 19that Timbro’s office.

Senior Adviser at Transport Analysis (2018). Tom Andersson, Senior Adviser, Transport Anal-ysis. Unpublished interview. Interview performed May 18th via e-mail.

163

Appendix I: Description of the Interviewees

Deputy Research Director at VTI

Sofia Lundberg is the deputy Research Director at VTI (the Swedish National Road and Trans-port Research Institute), a research institute owned by the Swedish government. Furthermore,Sofia is the responsible secretariat for JBS (the Railway Industry Cooperation Forum), whichis an initiative gathering all key players within the railway industry in Sweden, with the pur-pose of insuring and improving the competitiveness of the railway network. Beyond this,Sofia Lundberg has previous experience as product manager at Green Cargo, Head of FreightLogistics Group at WSP and from teaching logistics courses at KTH.

Head of Technology and Railway at ST-Agency

Maria Fahlen is head of the section Technology and Railway at the Swedish Transport Agency.The section is responsible for all evaluations and approvals of railways, tramways and subways,including both fixed installations and vehicles, evaluating their safety before they are allowedin to service. Moreover, the section Technology and Railway define the regulations for technicalrequirements and requirements in general for approval processes. In addition, they supportand participate in the process of creating international regulations for railways in the EU.

Researcher in transport planning

Oskar Froidh is a researcher at the department for Transport Planning, Economics and En-gineering at KTH, the Royal Institute of Technology. His expertise lays within the fields oftransport planning, transportation science and railway, and his research focus mainly on thefuture of railway traffic. Including planning, technical implementation, economy and investi-gating how to make trains more attractive and adapted to the current and future environment.Furthermore, Oskar evaluates socioeconomic effect from station placements as well as scenarioanalysis for the future fleet of vehicles in Sweden as well as produce socioeconomic calculationsand evaluations of market questions and analysis.

Representative of FS links

Marten Frojdo is a Co-founder and Project Manager at FS Links, a company pursuing toconnect Stockholm and Helsinki with hyperloop technology. In addition, Frojdo is a ProjectManager at NCDP, Nordic Center for Digital Presence and Board Member of the Aland Fed-eration of Business Owners.

Senior Adviser at STA

Bjorn Hasselgren is a Senior Adviser the Swedish Transport Administration where he leadsstrategic transport infrastructure projects in Sweden and cross-border. Investigate alternativefinancing and organization of transport infrastructure, as well as conducts research relatedto electrified roads, strategic urban and general spatial planning and financing/organization.In addition to this, Bjorn is an Affiliated Researcher at the Faculty of Engineering at LundUniversity and a Senior Fellow at the think tank Timbro.

I

Lawyers of Setterwalls

This interview was performed as a group interview where three people from the law firmSetterwalls, namely; Ulf Djurberg, (Partner and Head of EU and Competition law department),Anna Lundberg (Associate) and Lorentz Reige (Associate). Setterwalls is the oldest law firmin Sweden and have been involved in the hyperloop discussion for 2,5 years, marketing thesimplicity of the regulatory process surrounding hyperloop. In 2016 Setterwalls partook in thedelineation of a feasibility study for hyperloop in the Nordic region. Where they contributedwith outlining the legal questions and areas necessary to investigate, together with what legalchanges and permissions that will be required in the process of realizing hyperloop in theNordic region.

Representative of Ramboll

Malcolm Sjodahl is Head of Business Development at Ramboll Sweden. Ramboll is a leadingcommunity advisor that designs the cities and communities of the future. Their core businesslays in innovative solutions that can benefit the society. On Ramboll, Malcolm works withdifferent projects that do not fit in the regular line business. This could include projects thatdo not already have an established customer demand for the service or technology in question,and hyperloop is an example of such a project where Malcolm has been largely involved. Inthe hyperloop context, Malcolm’s focus has been mainly on the surrounding infrastructureand socio-economic effects of a hyperloop system. He has, among other things, participatedin creating a pre-feasibility study on the potential route between Stockholm – Helsinki incollaboration with KPMG, Setterwalls Advokatbyra and FS links in 2016.

Professor in transport economics

Folke Snickars is a Professor emeritus at the Department of Urban Planning and Environmentat KTH, the Royal Institute of Technology with expertise in socioeconomic impact on society.His research is mainly focused on Game Theory, Transport Economics and Economic Geogra-phy. Folke has participated in informative activities regarding hyperloop in Sweden and assistsFS Links with contacts in the Nordic Region.

Professor in rail vehicle dynamics

Sebastian Stichel is a Professor in rail vehicle dynamics at the department of Aeronauticaland Vehicle Engineering, KTH, the Royal Institute of technology. His research focuses mainlyon vehicle design and interaction between vehicle and track, to predict and improve comfort,wear down, fatigue and active systems. Further, Sebastian is Director of the Railway Group atKTH, a group of representatives from organizations with specific interest in research relatedto the development and competitiveness of the railways.

Member of parliament (M)

Maria Stockhaus is a representative of the Swedish political party Moderaterna and a Memberof the Swedish Parliament. Further, she is a member of the Committee on Education andthe The Swedish Delegation at the Nordic Council. In addition, she is also a suppliant of the

II

Committee on Civil Affairs. Maria has an interest in new technology and its potential effectsafter working a lot with the digitalization of schools. She first got in touch with the hyperloopconcept in mid-2016, which lead to her taking the initiative for a parliamentary seminar abouthyperloop in late 2016.

Member of parliament (L)

Mathias Sundin is a representative of the Swedish political party Liberalerna and a Memberof the Swedish Parliament as well as a member of the Committee on Taxation and suppli-ant of the Committee on industry and trade, Finance, Transport and Communications, andForeign Affairs. His interest for the hyperloop technology has its origin in his work with digi-talization and new technology, where hyperloop amongst others caught his attention. MathiasSundin have been trying to increase awareness among politicians for technologies that possessa great potential for the future, hyperloop included. Hence, Mathias created a petition called“Hyperloop I Sverige” (Sundin et al., 2016), which was presented to the Parliament in 2016.

Representative of Hyperloop Sweden

Rikard Windh is a board member at Hyperloop Sweden, a nonprofit organization with thepurpose of connecting people which have a specific interest and enthusiasm for hyperloop,people that want to partake in the process of realizing the technology in Sweden. Rikardhas a background as an entrepreneur and have started roughly 10 different companies withinsoftware development. He got attached to the hyperloop idea when Hyperloop One initiatedactive discussions with Dubai about building a hyperloop system, which lead Rikard to researchthe concept. Currently, Hyperloop Sweden is currently trying to get a serious study in motionand create a foundation for fruitful discussions surrounding hyperloop in Sweden.

Senior Adviser at Transport Analysis

Tom Andersson is Senior Adviser at Transport Analysis.He works with evaluation, statisticsand analysis within shipping and rail transport.

III

TRITA TRITA-ITM-EX 2018:381

www.kth.se