I think the only game changing thing about the hyperloop is that it is getting rich people excited about public transit. I mean, my guess is that we're never going to get a SF <-> LA transit path that is faster than a airline with a "skip the security" pass; I don't believe that the hyperloop as envisioned will never be built.
I know that sounds trivial... but it's not. Public transit is a failure in America in large part because wealthy people, even wealthy people who support public transit in general, don't want public transit near them.
> even wealthy people who support public transit in general, don't want public transit near them.
This seems very odd to me. Here in the Netherlands, housing prices actually increase when there's good public transport. In the north of Amsterdam a new metro line is being built, which is already causing an increase in housing prices there.
For instance, biking to school or work in the US means you are kinda poor or a cheapskate (not for everyone, and not in densely populated cities such as DC/Arlington, SF, NYC and Perhaps Boston)
On the other hand, in Europe I've seen deans biking to school and the feeling is exactly the opposite ("wow that's so cool!")
Sorry for generalizing, but that was what I saw, having lived on both sides
Really? Have you ever tried to get from the train station of, say, Blaricum or Bloemendaal to anywhere else there? 'Wealthy' people don't live in houses whose prices are affected by availability of public transport, in the Netherlands. (OTOH I wouldn't say that they 'don't want PT near them', but then again that's not really true for other places either).
This is true, but we're talking SF & LA here, metropolitan areas. Blaricum is better compared to something like the Hamptons. There is no public transport because there's space to park cars, so public transportation is not necessary and it's impractical since the population is spread out.
The Apollobuurt in Amsterdam is also full of rich people and yet there's a lot of public transportation. The people living there are not against public transportation though.
Public transit is not a failure in the US, it's just very uneven and it's a big country. Moreover, the US especially suffers from the "lost decades" of urban decay through the mid 20th century. There was a sweet spot for initial public transit infrastructure investment around the turn of the 20th century and a lot of cities in the US missed it, with a much bigger hill to climb today.
Public transport in the US is generally a failure because we try to build static systems in low-to-moderate density areas with dynamic population change.
I.e. putting a $30 million light rail system in a "business corridor", then watching market forces move businesses away from it 5 years later and wondering why no one rides the trams.
I should say hundreds of millions. This[1], for example.
Munis sell these projects on the "expectations that the corridors will attract much economic growth," but the finished product has shown not to be a reliable multiplier of community investment and development.
I know that sounds trivial... but it's not. Public transit is a failure in America in large part because wealthy people, even wealthy people who support public transit in general, don't want public transit near them.