Apart from science, which robots can do however slowly, I see little value in "Going to Mars" - even if we were prepared, which we're not.
No air, no water, no plants or animals, no fuel, plenty of radiation (on the trip and while there) and dust and extreme cold. Other than very expensive chest-beating (for which the Moon is a closer dead body), reason suggests that continued support of robotic exploration will pay off better for science.
In the meantime we can invent new technologies which will greatly ease the burdens and dangers - once we have invented actual goals to make of such journeys worth the enormous investment.
Long-distance tube transport seems more than a little pipe-dreamish. Regional OTOH seems inevitable.
Well, while I probably wouldn't say "much more" than Tesla or Space X, I would think that hyperloop could be just as important as at least Tesla. It has the potential to eradicate most of the commercial airline industry.
With the NASA having troubles getting the budget it needs and seeing the slow-ish development elsewhere, I disagree about SpaceX potential.
With Tesla, on the other hand, I'm with you. I see Tesla like Luciano Pavarotti back in the day. Arguable the greatest in his field, but no matter how amazing he was, he did not end up changing everything we know about music. He started the huge change on how general public sees the opera, but he wasn't alone and it was just the beginning.
Now, Tesla might be the beginning of a big shift towards how we perceive electric cars, and it could even be the next Ford or General Motors, but it's not the next Benz Autowagen or the invention of the railroad, which Hyperloop clearly would have potential for.
Statements like this are exactly why Musk regrets talking about it. We don't even know what the idea is, and it's already more world-changing than two actual, amazing companies.