You are underestimating the safety buffer zone requirement for protecting the air-tight, 1000Km-long vacuum tubes.
Since any sudden re-pressurization of the tube due to a breach of air-tight-seal is bound to cause catastrophic system-wide failure,
that is 15 psi "shock wave" travelling at speed of sound hitting the trains causing instant death in passengers in that tube,
you have to protect these tubes from errant construction equipment or a Timothy McVeigh wanna-be in a crane with a wrecking ball.
It's much simpler than you are describing.
1. There will be 1000km long vacuum tube, there are low air pressure tube.
2. Tubes will be separated at certain interval, (Let's say 10KM) by some sort of valves, so a re-pressurization can be prevented from spreading into the whole system.
3. In case of a failure/re-pressurization, the tubes will just be filled with Normal air from outside and pods will make an emergency stop.
4. The low cost is based on assumption of
-Free/low cost land (Existing highway/rural areas)
-Free unlimited energy to power the system by installing solar pannels on top of the Tubes.
So a system between Dubai-Abu Dhabi or within Texas would be much more feasible/cheaper than lets' say North East corridor, where available land is very scarce.
Elon Musk has, so far, burned 14 Billion US§ of Investors Money. There seems to be no Limit as Long as fools Keep on pumpimg Money in.
Space shuttle cost close to $200 billion, and to develop new car from scratch, it cost upwards of $6 billion, and that does not include any re-fueling in-fracture or Dealer/Service network
So $14 Billion to
Develop & commercialize re-usable rockets
Develop & commercialize pollution free(or low Pollution) car Tech along with multiple Platforms, sales/service network as well as re-fueling infrastructure is a bargain.
Stop thinking in Aerospace R&D cycle and start thinking in Software Development cycles. Hyberloop went from theoretical concept to full scale Pod testing in less than four years, without little/No government support.
here is the picture of the actual pod being tested. IT IS FULL SCALE.
Jet Engine took over a decade to go from concept to full scale testing with massive Govt support with war time funding from multiple governments.
Hyperloop is a point-to-point system, not a network. Consider a potential Hyperloop connecting hub. You would need dozens of connecting tubes descending on a central transfer point. Located above or below ground that becomes a lot of infrastructure to maintain. Instead my guess is that Hyperloop will probably be limited to some larger P2P markets.
Add in a few Self driving Cars on both ends, then we have a much great Point to Point system for distance upwards of 1000 KM.
It will be much cheaper/convenient than Air travel.
All of the proposals have a limited capacity. Tube and pod size, safety cushion spacing between passenger pods, number of tubes between cities, etc. will all limit the number of passengers. I have seen estimates of a maximum capacity between 500 to 1,000 passengers per hour each direction (assuming it is built as a two tube route). But again that is also just point-to-point.
If developed, Hyperloop systems will siphon off some passengers in some larger city pairs from other transportation modes. Those passengers will save time. But I don't see it eliminating the need for other short and mid distance transportation modes to handle additional passenger demand or smaller routes
Do not forget the productivity of the system. If a 10 Person (weighting less than your minivan) can travel at an average speed of 500mk/h, and assuming total distance is 750KM.
In a 24 Hour cycle, a single pod should be able to complete 7 return trip (assuming loading/unloading takes about 5 minutes) That's 70 person per day, each way.
50 Seat RJ Productivity: 2 Hour gate to gate time plus 30 minute loading/unloading time at the and 12.5 Hour daily maximum utilization= 2.5 round trip per day=50*2.5= 125 per day each way.
That's close to 60% of the productivity compared to 50 sear RJ with only 1/5 of the capacity,
Keep in mind this would be an autonomous system requiring no recurring fuel (solar powered) or labor while in motion.
Fuel and labor are the two largest cost element of airline operation by far. Without these costs, Operating cost of Hyperloop would be much cheaper compared to airlines.
Intra California routes, NE Corridor etc have more chance of disruption from flying cars than they do "hyperloop."
first of all, a flying car would be a design compromise and neither be a good car nor a good airplane. Given that limitation, How do you suppose FAA would mange over 20 million (rough estimate of cars in NE corridor) Flying cars within the Airspace of NE corridor?
How can it be cheaper than a conventional high-speed rail when there is:
1) a need to build air-tight tubes lined with powerful electromagnets
2) a need to maintain vacuum in the tube at all times
3) a need to devise a way to rescue a stopped train in the tube
4) a need to devise a way to cool the train's propulsion system in a vacuum since no air-cooling is possible
1) powerful electromagnets will have free electricity from Solar panels installed over the tubes=cheap to operate.
2) Not vacuum, but low air pressure.
3) that is still a problem as far as i know.
4) again Low air pressure, not Vacuum.
Odd thing.Elon has succeeded to date by using existing technology and making it more efficient.This is a 'blue sky' type project into the technical unknown.Nearly always turns out far harder than expected.
Isn't the Re-usable rocket that can return to it's landing pad for re-launch is the definition of 'blue sky' project.