Oh yes. The problem is that there's a big gap between what is technologically possible, and what the general public will tolerate. This is why I think most hyperloop schemes will fail; no one will be willing to get on something that goes that fast in case something goes wrong.
It's technologically too advanced. It's still in the "magic" realm if it's ever possible. I mean, JR Maglev already goes so quick with lots of extremely long underground sections that I wonder is it possible to even evacuate, or is it simply shouldn't be done (ie. emergency plan : just go on ASAP). Donning the same maglev train in a strong (?) vacuum chamber would mean that evacuation (heheh, evacuation in evacuation) is impossible, yet the slightest failure surely needs evacuation. In an evacuation (??!).
I wonder though, by "transport planner" does it mean you plan new infra or such ?
Yeah; at the end of the day perceptions of passenger safety are what really killed the Concorde, when there were a few very high profile crashes in quick succession. I remember the stories on TV about jumbo jets being full because all the businessmen were changing their flights from Concorde.
Specifically, I work on calculating the value for money of new railway schemes, and helping to develop schemes to maximise the value for money. For example, you have two options: A and B. A is very expensive and delivers you a lot of benefit. B is cheaper, and delivers you a good level of benefit, but not as much as A (ie: it could be slower, or have fewer stations). I help to calculate and inform whether it's worth paying extra to deliver A (because the railwaymen will always want to build A because it's sexier!), or even whether it's worth doing in the first place (they could both be terrible options). If you want to talk offline or privately, I'd be very happy to tell you more.