The Hyperloop is back in the news in a big way. A company calling itself Hyperloop One built a “test track” in the desert outside of Las Vegas and successfully tested a device on a track:

The 700 mph #Hyperloop just got one step closer to reality. @HyperloopOne held its first test run.https://t.co/7o3JcaL7f3 — CNBC (@CNBC) May 11, 2016

Gizmodo has more details on this stunt:

Using the linear-electric motor that will eventually accelerate a hyperloop pod, engineers orchestrated what they call a “propulsion open-air test,” or POAT. The test vehicle (nicknamed a “sled”) goes from 0 to 60 mph in about one second, generating a force of about 2.5Gs. Hypothetically, the same motor could enable a more aerodynamically designed vehicle to reach speeds of 700 mph in a very low-pressure tube.

2.5Gs? That brings to mind Alon Levy’s excellent deep dive into the physics of the Hyperloop, in which he called it a “barf ride” as the speeds will put intense pressure on passengers. But, because it’s the Hyperloop and because Elon Musk’s name is affiliated with the concept, the media overlooks such small details to instead breathlessly report on it.

But facts are facts. David Levinson attempted to offer some on CNBC today. Here’s what he was planning to say, though as anyone who’s done a TV hit knows, what the producers pitch and what you actually get asked tend to be different:

This is what I intended to say. These were the producer’s preliminary questions (in blockquote) and my preliminary answers (in bullets). Let’s start with the assumption that the Hyperloop works as advertised. What are the potential benefits of a technology like this? Are there any transportation infrastructure projects – for example, Japan’s high-speed rail system – that are analogous to this type of transportation, or have we never really seen anything like this before? • I think the best analogy is with the development of the railroads in the first place back in 1825. Hyperloop requires both new tube technology (the track) as well as new vehicles. One question is whether it is a series of isolated runs (like elevators), or a comprehensive network (like roads, rail, or air transportation). Let’s talk challenges. What would have to happen for a private company to be able to run a tube from, for example, Los Angeles to San Francisco? How difficult would it be to add a hyperloop to America’s existing transportation infrastructure? • They would need to acquire right-of-way. If it is tunneled this might be easier than at grade or elevated. There are already trains and highways between major US cities, so borrowing right-of-way from highway or rail agencies is probably a good place to start. One of the issues will be curvature though, at high speeds, hyperloops likely will need, or at least want, more gentle curves than automobiles or trains require, and so need land beyond existing rights-of-way. Tunneling is more expensive than elevated or at grade, so this adds costs. Do you personally see this technology being implemented over the next 20-25 years or not? • Major technologies like trains and highways and aviation took decades to reach maturity, nearly a century in the case of rails. While there might be some selected niche lines built over the coming decades, it will not be an important element of the US transport system for decades if ever.

Levinson’s responses make a ton of sense. Addressing the G force issues means less curves and as straight a route as possible. That requires buying up right of way, and as the California HSR project has discovered, this is no easy task. Building a short test track in the empty desert is nothing compared to buying up land in the Bay Area or in the Central Valley – especially if you don’t have government eminent domain power backing you up.

I think he’s right that this will play out like maglev. There might be some “niche lines” built in the next 20-30 years. The idea that, as the Hyperloop One people claim, people will be riding a Hyperloop in 2021 is just delusional. Unless they’re talking about a short test track that’s basically a Disneyland ride in the Nevada desert.

Still, this is the Hyperloop, where reality and facts don’t seem to matter. Already we’re seeing fanciful representations of the system emerge, as LA Times reporter Laura J. Nelson shows in the tweet below:

Oh. I had somehow missed this rendering of Hyperloop until now. pic.twitter.com/5WmorcrQvK — Laura J. Nelson (@laura_nelson) May 11, 2016

And the replies to the tweet are great too. (She’s not actually saying this is a good or feasible idea, she’s passing it along with an “I can’t even” shrug.)

What this shows is that if you’re a Silicon Valley entrepreneur, you can propose any kind of crazy idea and get the media to not just take you seriously, but to fawn all over you. But if you’re a government, or a transit advocate, or just someone who’s been on a bullet train and thought “we should have that in California,” well, prepare for that same media to mock you and credulously write articles repeating the spin of every NIMBY and anti-HSR ideologue who sends you an email.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not anti-Hyperloop. But it is often used – including by Elon Musk – as a way to attack HSR. And that’s wrong. HSR will be up and running decades before the Hyperloop is connecting California’s regions.