Hyperloop is such a bad idea on so many levels. Mass transportation is the future: trains, suburban trains and metros. Not cars or "mini metros for cars".
Super fast trains are already there. Europe lives in the future compared to the USA.
Super fast trains are already there. Europe lives in the future compared to the USA.
Europe is the size of a postage stamp compared to the USA (or even worse, Canada).
Oregon is larger than the UK. Texas is larger than France. Alaska is larger than all of Western Europe.
Europe North-South is comparable to the US East-West coast distance. Europe East-West is comparable to the US North-South.
The US has more land mass (and there is Alaska, which is the jolly joker card here - we can counterbalance this with the russian-speaking regions of the European continent, it is debatable whether they are "Europe" or not), let's say the lower 48 US is maybe two times the area of "classical" Europe. Europe is also much more densely populated.
So if you consider the USA to be the size of two postage stamps, then you might actually be correct :)
Area of Oregon: 254,806 km2
Area of UK: 242,495 km2
Area of Texas: 696,241 km2
Area of France: 643,801 km2
Area of Alaska: 1,717,856 km2
Area of Western Europe: depends on which definition you use. But smaller than Alaska by most.
"Europe is also much more densely populated."
Yes, it is. It is smaller and more densely populated, which means that rail transportation makes sense (note that you also see rail transportation in the more densely populated regions of the United States, such as the BosWash Corridor, Chicagoland, etc.)
I think they were still running steam engines on some routes until quite recently.
Existing lines and infrastructure? Perhaps. But we too have existing lines and infrastructure (train stations on those lines).
Or is it perhaps that building and maintaining miles and miles of rails, vs. tubes, is just way, way more cost effective?
Well, car needs roads and roads are public goods. And, of course, they need a lot of public funding, planning and maintenance. All with public money.
Governments pushed for cars as a mean of transportation because in the Keynesian era was good for the whole economy (car factories employed a lot of people), and nature was less of a concern. But pushing for cars was a deliberate public policy that involved a lot of public infrastructure, city planning, etc...
Driverless cars would need a lot of infrastructure as well, but I don't think they are a good investment for the whole economy like normal cars were in the '50s. With putting a lot of public money for infrastructure to help a few companies that do not employ so many people anymore?
The future is not for cars, IMHO. But who knows...
Self-driving pickup of my groceries? Check. Self-driving pickup of my dry cleaning? Check. Self-drive me overnight to next vacation? Double check.
The future is bright, and it's chock-fucking-full of (self-driving) cars.