There is nothing inherently cheaper about building rockets versus building rockets. You still need steel tubes, fuel, safety checking, failsafes, tons of programming, recovery tests, launch tests, etc etc etc. You think contracting out the launch site is the expensive part? Boeing and Lockheed, Bush, and Obama put a total pricetag of getting to Mars at ~100 billion. Why does Musk think he can do it in 10?
The major cost of building out a high speed rail line isn't even the right of way. It's that the entire structure of the system is geared towards making payouts to politically connected individuals, industries, and special interests. If you know anything about CHSR, you'd know that already ~$20MM has been spent on it without even laying down a single track (er, they might have started a smidge of work on it in an inconsequential section) or acquiring any rights of way. This is already way way way overbudget. If anything the overriding reason that Hyperloop will be cheaper is that it stands a chance of being a carte blanche idea - where the influence- and money- grubbing constituencies have at least a shot of minimizing their impact on the bottom line of the project.
Regardless of the merits of this argument, it's not relevant here. Musk didn't estimate the cost of the SF->LA hyperloop on the basis of "I have a unique ability to lower the costs of this project."
He estimated the cost as low based on the use of a preexisting right-of-way (mainly I-5), and needing an inherently narrower, lighter "track" than was envisioned for HSR.
A hyperloop designed for freight would presumably be wider than what Musk envisioned for the passenger-focused LA/SF route, and in some routes would involve either purchasing or repurposing rights of way.
> Musk didn't estimate the cost of the SF->LA hyperloop on the basis of "I have a unique ability to lower the costs of this project."
No, but he didn't bother to explicitly explain why the CHSR is expensive, he just gave their figure (which is almost certainly an underestimate). For example, unwritten went the parts about not servicing cities where there is less demand (mostly a political play by CHSR).... There won't be a hyperloop designed for freight - most freight runs perfectly fine on existing rail lines. Part of the reason why passenger rail in the US sucks is that it shares lines with freight the safety standards for freight are more lax, for obvious reasons, and the speed tolerances lower, so passenger rail is restricted to lower speeds on freight lines, then amtrak has to make exorbitant payouts to rent-seekers like BNSF and Norfolk Southern (the most egregious of them, IIRC) just to rent back that right of way.
He's on the board of directors of CBRE. Also, CBRE is the preeminent commercial real estate company in the world. I'd be amazed if you could accomplish a project of that magnitude without involving that company at some level.
I actually made a mistake - it wasn't CBRE that won the award, but rather a company called "Tutor-Perini", which Richard Blum is the chairman of the board for.
The major cost of building out a high speed rail line isn't even the right of way. It's that the entire structure of the system is geared towards making payouts to politically connected individuals, industries, and special interests. If you know anything about CHSR, you'd know that already ~$20MM has been spent on it without even laying down a single track (er, they might have started a smidge of work on it in an inconsequential section) or acquiring any rights of way. This is already way way way overbudget. If anything the overriding reason that Hyperloop will be cheaper is that it stands a chance of being a carte blanche idea - where the influence- and money- grubbing constituencies have at least a shot of minimizing their impact on the bottom line of the project.