Originally Posted by
Walter S
There seem to be a number of well respected experts that don't buy into the economic or technical viability of the concept. It doesn't look like something that's quite ready to be tried in my opinion. Too many unknowns. If the ticket price can't be contained then it will be a huge flop and won't pay for the construction.
So the best location *might be* "somewhere else".
The first thing that occurred to me about this speed of commuting was the prospect of intensifying job-competition as people from a much broader region would gain access to the same job-markets. I also realized simultaneously that widespread political opposition would emerge for this very reason. If there's one thing you can assume about 'the masses,' it's that they will rally to protect localities against less local competition. Anti-competitiveness is more or less akin to monogamy in terms of giving people a sense of security.
Despite this, I think it's important to go beyond the fear-of-social-change factor and think about the social-cultural value of creating a form of transit that is faster and more efficient than any existing mode. If people can commute 100 miles in 20 minutes through a tube, it sort of antiquates the prospect of spending two hours in a car to commute the same distance.
Ultimately this technology could propel culture in the direction of viewing different modes of transportation more in terms of choice than necessity. Instead of asking oneself, "how far can I reasonably drive for the sake of connecting where I live to where I can gainfully work," the question becomes what mode(s) of transportation one is willing to take and what the job opportunities within that range are.