It really shows what the Hyperloop really is: something to divert interest and money away from working mass transit options.
I do not personally see any public entity funding hyperloop for at least a decade. The only ones who are interested now is the UAE govt because they have a perfect test case and $ to back it along with ambition to be a player.
Like, I totally get experimenting, but this is one of those things that you can see is not even worth experimenting on.
All kinds of trains face the same problem. Their target and destination has to be fixed in advance. Thus their cost raises linearly with every new station served. A workable subway net (say, Berlin) has so many stations that you are often quicker by bike, you often wait 10min for a connecting train, and even then the distance between two stations is often barely walkable for a lot of passengers. Oh, and the trains often run close to Max capacity.
Buses are much better, as they can use roads flexibly. They suffer from high operating wage costs (one driver per dozens of passengers) and very small stations, though.
Compare this to individual traffic, especially (electric) bikes: You can go point-to-point, at any time you want, at your personal speed. The only matter is that bikes need to get safer (ABS, lighting) and cities should invest into weather proof roads (coarse asphalt, managed lanes, lighting, if possible roofs). If you combine that with trains that only have to stop every 5-10km you are pretty close to a perfect mode of operations for even the largest mega city, I think. In less densely populated areas, battery-electric vehicles could substitute trains quite nicely.
edit: To the downvoters. I know it sucks when someone challenges your deeply ingrained ideology. But I do live in a city with exactly the problems I mentioned and no amount of political willpower will ever change physics.
Basel's mass transit system was a lovely fit for my needs as a tourist, for example. (Berlin's big city system confused me and I wasn't there long enough to learn it.)
> you are often quicker by bike .. barely walkable for a lot of passengers
That's two opposite complaints. At least, I assume that those people who can barely walk the distance are also those that can't bike the distance. So, do you want more stations (for those who can't walk) or fewer (making it better for those who bike)?
> you often wait 10min for a connecting train
Umm, 10 minute average wait is a sign of a good mass transit system. That's short enough that most people simply show up and wait, rather than having to make specific plans.
How often do you want it to be?
'Course, I grew up in Miami. Quoting https://www.masstransitmag.com/bus/news/21157358/fl-tired-of... :
> maddening delays and 30-60-minute waits on a network that meanders to all nooks of the sprawling county at snail-like speeds. ... Of the county's 100 routes, only five are scheduled for maximum frequency; passengers can count on buses arriving every 15 minutes or less at all hours every day.
You mentioned a few of the negatives about buses. Another is that they can carry fewer people. If the train is at max capacity, how many buses do you think will be needed to replace it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BVG_Class_HK says the capacity of one of the U-Bahn trains is 296 seated; 1,624 standing and https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/DB-Baureihe_481 for the S-Bahn has seating for 94 standing for 200 (for a 481-482)a and the minimum for a train is twice that (as a 481-482-482-481 configuration). So call that 500 people. But note that that's the minimum length train configuration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_transport_in_Berlin says the biggest buses - double-deckers - carry 110 people. So you'll need at least 5x the number of buses as you currently have trains, and more likely 8x or more.
Another issue with buses is that unless you have dedicated lanes, they end up getting stuck in traffic.