I would say any stop in between the two cities would have a large spike in growth, as they suddenly become viable commuter communities, much like how suburban towns on the east coast grew out of proximity to regional rail lines. Suddenly a little rural truck stop town like Lost Hills becomes a viable commuting suburb.

That's probably true. I could see far more impact in places like that, say, Santa Monica or Irvine.

A number of years ago a friend gave me a coffee mug that read: "What would you do if you knew you could not fail?".

I eventually threw it away. Every time I saw it I was reminded of the huge chasm between ideas and their realization. Sure, if you knew you could not fail you'd do anything. "What would you do if you were Superman?. Same thing. Things are different in the real world.

So, how would LA/SFO change if we had Star Trek transporters?

Not sure. My guess is, not much. SFO real estate is about living in SFO. Just like Santa Monica real estate is about living there. The same being true about Beverly Hills or Hollywood.

The HUGE problem something like the Hyperloop has to deal with are the stations. You can't declare that you are going to have one every ten miles. The real world doesn't work that way. If I have to drive an hour to get to downtown Los Angeles (a place I personally avoid as much as possible) it is nearly a deal-breaker for me. Not interested. I'd rather get on a plane in Burbank.

The nature of Los Angeles is that the talented people you are referring to don't all live within biking distance of a Hyperloop station. Los Angeles talent is seriously dispersed all over the place. I know people who would be interested in working at SpaceX yet don't pursue it because it would take them two hours to get there in real-world traffic and they can't move because their kids go to good schools where they live.

Ultimately, I think that anyone who wants to work in SFO needs to move there or to a surrounding city.

I insist that cargo is where high speed rail belongs in our country. I don't see it happening for passenger transport.

>>A number of years ago a friend gave me a coffee mug that read: "What would you do if you knew you could not fail?". I eventually threw it away. Every time I saw it I was reminded of the huge chasm between ideas and their realization. Sure, if you knew you could not fail you'd do anything.

Well, no. You would not do anything. You would only do the things that the prospect of failure is currently stopping you from doing. The underlying idea is that things can be worth doing even if you end up failing at them. In fact, this is an idea Elon Musk embraces very closely. He has admitted in interviews that when he starts pursuing an idea, he knows that the most likely result is failure. Yet he pursues it anyway. The end result is that we have PayPal and Tesla and SpaceX.

>>The nature of Los Angeles is that the talented people you are referring to don't all live within biking distance of a Hyperloop station.

They don't all have to live within biking distance of a Hyperloop station. It is sufficient even if only some of them do. That's still several thousand talented people you're talking about.

Furthermore, you are not considering the economics of it very thoroughly. Flying from LA to SF currently takes 3+ hours. You drive to the airport, go through security, board the plane, deal with occasional delays, and then when you get to your destination you have to wait for luggage. On top of this, it costs around $100.

Consider an alternative involving Hyperloop. Even if you live within 30 minute driving distance of it, you would still get to SF in a little over an hour and for only $20.