Adoption of Hyperloop Exploring Public Perspectives on the Development of Hyperloop in the Netherlands, using Q-methodology Kunal Shetty This page is left intentionally blank 1 Adoption of Hyperloop Exploring Public Perspectives on the Development of Hyperloop in the Netherlands using Q-methodology By Kunal Shetty in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Management of Technology, Faculty of TPM at the Delft University of Technology, to be defended publicly on Thursday February 28, 2019 at AM. Chairman : Prof. dr. G.P. (Bert) van Wee Supervisor : Dr. J.A. (Jan Anne) Annema Thesis committee : Dr. L. (Laurens) Rook S.J. (Stefan) Marges, Hardt Hyperloop An electronic version of this thesis is available at http://repository.tudelft.nl/. 2 This page is left intentionally blank 3 Acknowledgement First and Foremost, I would like to thank my first supervisor, Dr. J.A. (Jan Anne) Annema for his guidance and feedback during the process of this research. He was available whenever I needed feedback, guiding me in the right direction with the most friendliest of approach. It was a pleasure working with him. I would also like to thank my chair Prof. dr. G.P. (Bert) van Wee and second supervisor Dr. L. (Laurens) Rook for their valuable feedback and for agreeing to be a part of my thesis committee. Additionally. I would also like to thank Stefan Marges from Hardt Hyperloop for agreeing to associate my research with Hardt Hyperloop. Furthermore, I would like to thank the interviewees who agreed to take time out from their schedule and answer questions necessary for my research. It felt good to gain attention from some of the best experts in field of transportation, both in academia and industry. Most importantly, I would like to thank my parents, Shreya and Roshita for their unwavering support and unconditional love. To Alper, for being my brother from another mother. I have learnt to be truly grateful through this process and will be for the coming years. Kunal Shetty Delft, February 2019 4 Executive Summary Ever since it was conceptualized by Elon Musk, Hyperloop has promised to deliver a sustainable mode of transport travelling at speeds faster than any other mode of transport alternatives available. Other promises of Hyperloop include a cheaper mode of medium to long distance transport, which would enable faster and more efficient travel between two cities. This will have profound impact on the urban infrastructure planning as well as lifestyle trends of the wider society. The nature of its development makes it a large scale multi stakeholder project. For Hyperloop to be a successful innovation, it needs to be widely adopted by the society it intends to serve. Thus, studies are required to evaluate the factors that affect travel mode determinants. However, this innovation does not only impact the potential active users, but will also affect the non-users due to the extensive infrastructure development required for the project. Thus, in addition, studies have to measure the public perception to reduce the barriers or to generate awareness about the benefits of Hyperloop. Therefore, to fill this knowledge gap on perspectives on the development of Hyperloop, the following research question was formulated: “What are the different public perspectives on the development of Hyperloop as a mode of transport?” To achieve the objective of identifying perceptions on the development of Hyperloop, the ‘Political Economy Model for Transport Innovations’ was used as a framework. The model was chosen since it is identified that adoption of an innovation with a large scale infrastructure development such as Hyperloop is not a function of individualistic decision making only. The model however was adapted to achieve the objectives of this study. Thus, the figure below was chosen as the framework. Political Economy Model to measure Social Feasibility (Feitelson and Salomon, 2004) The research generated a set of opinions by interviewing experts from the field of transport innovations, Hyperloop and transport policy. The interviewers were a balanced mix of experts from academia and industry. Based on their input a set of 25 statements were presented to a sample set of respondents who would likely be affected by the development of Hyperloop in the Netherlands. Using Q-methodology steps, the existing perspectives on its development was evaluated. 4 distinct perspectives were identified based on the analysis and the results of Q- sorting. The first perspective is, ‘Support for Research on Hyperloop’. This perspective 5 supported the R&D efforts on the development of Hyperloop, which would be beneficial for existing travel modes or future innovations. The second perspective was ‘Improvement in Current Transport Modes’. This perspective supported the idea of improving the services of the current public transport modes such as rail and air services for the same purpose that is intended to be achieved with Hyperloop. The third perspective is ‘Support for Implementation of Hyperloop’, which supports the idea of a full-fledged development of Hyperloop in the Netherlands. The fourth perspective is ‘Skeptical of Hyperloop Development’ which expressed skepticism on the nature of the technology based on its promised benefits. The analysis thus generated a set of 2 positive and 2 negative perceptions. However, it was found that even though the views were opposing, The relative ranking or priority given to statements were similar in some cases. The research infers that even though the opinions on certain aspects remain the same, the envisaged solutions or perspectives can differ. Thus, it is inferred that decision making on the development of Hyperloop needs to involve the affected public as a primary stakeholder. There should be a better flow of communication between the grass root level of government bodies to national government council, and the affected public. Also, involving and integrating development efforts of the existing transport modes in terms of research and development is the way forward for Hyperloop. Through this study it was found that it is important to identify and achieve broad consensus among the stakeholders to increase acceptance of a particular innovation such as Hyperloop. This was in line with (Innes, 1996) research on building consensus for public infrastructure and development projects. Thus it was proposed that the model selected earlier be subject to iterations until a broad social consensus (Social Feasibility) is achieved among not only ‘Public Groups’, but also ‘Experts’ and ‘Industry Interests’. Also, Q-methodology helps in iterative studies using the same model, providing statistical data to identify the distinct perspectives. The new model is shown below. Although not generalizable, the high replicability of Q-methodology helps in achieving the desired ‘Social Feasibility’. Recommended Model for Building Consensus for Social Feasibility This research is an attempt to initiate literature on the adoption of Hyperloop as a viable mode of transport. The perceptions that are generated via this study are not generalizable. Also, the perceptions are subject to change, depending on the knowledge available about the topic to the public as well as changing needs in the landscape of transport modes. It was also found that a study of this nature improved the general awareness of individuals towards the technology of 6 Hyperloop. This could be used by the primary stakeholders to thus generate awareness among the wider society and address any concerns on the nature of its development. Similar studies can also be replicated across regions where the stakeholders foresee development in. The study can be replicated for cultural, political and social differences across borders. It could also be recommended to test the change in perception due to educational efforts on Hyperloop, or changing perceptions at different stages of its development. This can help the stakeholders incorporate better value sensitive design aspects as well as policy design around the technology. 7 Table of Contents Acknowledgement .......................................................................................................................... 4 Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 5 Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ 8 List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ 11 List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... 12 Chapter 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 14 1.1 Understanding need for Public Perception on Hyperloop ................................................................ 15 1.2 Research Relevance .......................................................................................................................... 16 1.3 Research Objective & Questions ....................................................................................................... 16 1.4 Methodology ..................................................................................................................................... 17 1.4.1 Literature Review