What problem exactly is it solving that isn't solved better by a train?
You still need to secure the land and build the track but instead of a cheap traditional track you need a low-pressure vessel. The costs and increased complexity are really not worth the shorter trip times.
Are you thinking about Hyperloop-One which isn't Elon's Hyperloop but a company that misappropriated the term Hyperloop and is doing above ground tunnels? Elon's Hyperloop is digging tunnels. Do some research, analysis, create a list of pros and cons - https://www.boringcompany.com/ their website if you don't know where to start.
What exactly in my reply are you referring to? I wasn't implying anything about above ground tunnels, construction doesn't get cheaper or easier when you put the tunnels under ground, in fact the opposite is true.
You said train and purchasing land: 1) these tunnels aren't for trains, and 2) you don't need to purchase land in most cases for tunnels - you need a license from the government.
Your comments continue to tell me you don't know any details about The Boring Company's efforts, where the boring machine they've designed so far - from having bought 3 different machines and did 3 test tunnels to study the machines, to then design their own boring machine - has apparently reached around a 15x speed improvement, essentially meaning a 15x cost reduction from the standard cost associated with digging tunnels.
Your attitude is akin to saying launching rockets into space can't get any cheaper, meanwhile Elon with SpaceX has proven that you can get the cost down from rocket launches from $60 million per launch down to $6 million per launch by having successfully creating re-usable rockets.
Re: the complexity of Hyperloop specifically needing a near-vacuum - Do you understand Elon has that expertise at his fingertips with SpaceX engineers? And that they've clearly proven they're competent and able at understanding and safely designing for physics?
The issue isn't lacking technology, the issue is political and in the physical sprawl of the states and major population centers. A hyperloop nor a high speed train could solve that issue. Assuming you could, connecting everything would be a massive federally driven undertaking, over decades, much like the highway system was, and be full of compromises that air travel doesn't have to make.
For example, try and figure out how many lines would be needed to connect all the major cities of America with high speed trains/hyperloops with useful travel times. Imagine New York to San Fran, now New York to Los Angeles, now NY to Dallas. Now how do I get from Dallas to San Fran? You can't afford to just make a different set of rails between every city, so they need to compromise with connections and detours all over the place, and with express long distance lines and stopping all station lines. It gets crazy complicated quickly.
Take a look at all the places that high speed rail works, and you'll note that they're all pretty linear lines. Japan's Shinkansen is pretty much a north to south trunk line with just a handful of high speed lines diverging away, and comparatively few stops along the trunk line. You can't do that in America.
I think you're analyzing this from too much of a top down approach rather than a bottom up.
Simply through competitive factors they should be able to takeover, compete with, existing transit lines - initially the higher traffic lanes, however eventually costs of tunnelling will come down further, demand will go up as the value of the tunnels will go up.
In Hawthorn, California, the city already approved a tunnel to go from a main tunnel leading into the house of someone garage; https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/09/boring-company-approved... - imagine the possibilities with that and the markets it disrupts because of the convenience then possible.
Or imagine having that tunnel system connecting to the top and/or bottom and/or middle of your street - so it's a short walk away, where a scheduled driverless pedestrian-centric vehicle comes to pick you up, or you get a package delivered to you that you pickup.
Elon suggested a cost of $1 per use of the tunnels. In LA traffic, how many people would pay $1 each way (or perhaps higher during peak for surge pricing they could implement if certain tunnels have excess demand; but then they can decide if they dig another parallel tunnel and earn even more profit) to save 3 minutes 15 seconds on their daily commute (~66% faster) - like this real-life demo comparison video shows on The Boring Company's landing page - https://www.boringcompany.com/?
I think people who are thinking the Loop and Hyperloop systems are going to fail are simply ignorant, unaware of where the product is already at, and/or they simply don't have a developed business-competition mind.
To the naysayers, it's akin to them saying pedestrians will never use a subway system - and with those systems initially it was private developers who made specific lines, only for cities to eventually buy out the individual owners so they could create a cohesive system for the citizens who's economies and people depended on.
Demand for the product is what will lead to these tunnelling systems becoming widespread - conveniently Elon needs the technology for his Mars project as well - and it will be investors who trust what they already see, and their own understanding and passion for the product, who invest funds to develop the technology further to build more tunnels and develop more revenue streams.
I know that explosive decompression is a blocking problem that is not being addressed (and no, partial vacuum makes no difference as anyone with a highschool level physics education can calculate.)
_WP.svg){kind=link}