Hyperloop is supposed to be significantly cheaper to build and operate due to reduced diameter, reduced impact on environment from noise (really fast maglev and

Hyperloop is supposed to be significantly cheaper to build and operate due to reduced diameter, reduced impact on environment from noise (really fast maglev and high speed rail can be an acoustics problem, particularly near tunnel orifices), and increased efficiency particularly at the high end (energy consumption per kilometer at high speeds is proportional to speed squared, and as you approach transonic speeds, it gets worse, so pumping almost all the air out can help dramatically... neglecting air friction, and depending on the exact technology, maglev itself is can actually be MORE efficient per ton-mile at high speeds than low). Hyperloop's infrastructure cost is hopefully being solved by The Boring Company (although if they make more than incremental progress in tunneling efficiency, all sorts of tunnel projects in the US--which has particularly bad tunnel infrastructure costs--should improve). Also, if Hyperloop succeeds, it might help loosen the political restraints. Personally, I think The Boring Company is more likely to be successful than Hyperloop itself. There's a lot of really hairy engineering required for super high speeds. BUT the Hyperloop student competition's 10km track could push the state of the art in rail speed, and that may have interesting consequences.