Location is a primary reason why Musk can claim Hyperloop will be cheaper than high speed rail. As the paper correctly points out, right-of-way acquisition is very expensive. Bypassing major population centers is an easy way out of using eminent domain or expensive tunneling to build the system. The HSR project is required by Proposition 1A to pass through several population centers in the state and have a couple dozen stops. Notably, Hyperloop proposes to bypass all of the SF peninsula, San Jose, and Central Valley cities like Fresno and Bakersfield. HSR was politically viable because these regions were included in the project. Furthermore, the route and station map appears to hint that Hyperloop's stations are positioned away from city centers. For example, the "San Francisco" station appears to be located in the East Bay and the "Los Angeles" station is closer to Burbank. This is quite significant from an urban planning perspective as it means that short haul transit or car trips have to be accommodated for a majority of those people who want to use the system. It also adds to the total travel time needed to get from door to door for a greater number of people than does HSR.

I'm not saying that Hyperloop is an inherently flawed project or that HSR is the perfect solution to the state's long-haul transportation needs. I just think that Musk is oversimplifying the situation.