> The whole point is that it is tunnels underneath the modern city. And I suspect part of the point the author is making is that this is the problem. Look at t

> The whole point is that it is tunnels underneath the modern city. And I suspect part of the point the author is making is that this is the problem. Look at the East Side Access project in New York. Building a tunnel underneath a modern city is an extremely difficult project - and largely for political and legal reasons, not technological ones. Hyperloop wouldn't solve a single one of those problems. We have enough transportation problems with known solutions that are underfunded. Why would we spend government money on a risky Hyperloop bet rather than invest in technology we already know works well? The article isn't really about the technology being used in Hyperloop (hence, I suspect, the inaccuracies you point out. I don't see how the detract from the point being made, though), it's about our desire to always chase the new shiny thing at any cost rather than spend money on the boring, functional stuff. Maybe we have lost sight of the marvels we can achieve with grand projects. Or maybe people are arguing we should fix the sewers before we make our gleaming tower in the sky.