[Someone]

"so we all hopped a ride down to Rio where we spent the rest of the day at the beach"

I'm not sure I would like that hypothetical world, because that beach would be crowded beyond what one can imagine, or, alternatively, controls would be implemented to manage crowding. For example, if people now are willing to spend $500 to travel to Rio, and the price drops to $5, one could easily require non-locals to buy beach permits for $100 a day or $250 a week. The best beaches could even go higher and aim for the jet set as, for example, Monaco already does to some extent, and China and Nepal do for Mount Everest.

So far, things seem sort-of OK, but of course, people would flock to other places as well. Millions would want to visit the poles for a few hours, see total solar eclipses at the most remote places, and the trek of the wildebeest would be dwarfed by the trek of the tourists. We would need lots of new rules to protect natural habitats that now partly are protected because that are so remote.

[nicoslepicos]

Definitely agree, fast, cheap travel also makes more apparent the issue of scarcity in high-demand areas (e.g. the beach in Rio). Interesting to consider if those areas are actually less crowded because you can get to more alternatives easily, and fewer people actually live there permanently because they could live in the remote country side and just go there for the day.

Not sure how things shake out as these transportation trends evolve: do you still have a tendency to crowded areas, or do you actually end up getting more diffusion. Suburbs were the city planner's utopia for a long time, but traffic and feelings of lack of community ended up making them less appealing than originally imagined. Maybe the suburb approach becomes more compelling again if problems of traffic & lack of community are addressed.