As someone who's been on and off involved in moving-people-technology, it's two-fold: it's "in the physical world" so you have all of the attendant problems (objections from people around the proposed construction, overlapping government bodies, cost, and that "the real world" isn't "sexy" for investment).
And second, if you make something that's very efficient but looks too much like public transport, there's a whole market of people, at least in North America, who simply won't ride it. Where I live, I had several coworkers who lived next to a bus route or train line that went directly to our offices and they'd still pay for a daily Uber.
The tricky part is the well designed and well run part and as you alluded to they run into a lot of real world issues during construction.
They also really need to be state run at break-even or even subsidized since the benefit is the general increase in economic productivity across the whole region rather than an opportunity to make a lot of money.
So politically they don't really fly in the US.
You can get an R44 with better range and payload for a couple hundred thousand. This will be an electronic nightmare requiring extensive certification and maintenance efforts. Cessna can't even sell ridiculously old designs for reasonable prices due to certification overhead.
https://www.aneclecticmind.com/2010/12/28/the-real-cost-of-h...
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/09/05/10492-tesla-model-s-mai...
https://www.tesloop.com/blog/2018/7/16/tesloops-tesla-model-...
edit: I thought looking at entire lifespan of the Tesla might be unfair since that includes a much longer period when it's significantly higher mileage than my car, but taking only an equivalent post-warranty period is even worse, it's about $0.24/km in maintenance over that time frame.
https://www.truedelta.com/Tesla-Model-S/repair-frequencies-1...
It’s a bit like “soon to be plane owners” that don’t quite pay attention when they are told the spark plug for their Cessna is 50USD, they need 8 for 4 cylinders and replace them rather frequently ;-)
Changes when they realize that those companies chartering out planes for less than 200 USD/h probably don’t make loads of cash but just keep track of actual expenses, have a high utilization and capable maintenance staff...
That's supposed to be the promise of electric aircraft: almost all serviceable parts go out the window, just as with electric cars. Construction and maintenance costs are reduced to a fraction of what they are for mechanical systems. And because these are VTOL, ground expenses are likewise reduced.
Batteries are still rather expensive, though, and energy density sucks. The advantages may not be able to compensate, at least not sufficiently to hit a price point that appeals to a wider, non-millionaire market.
I don’t want to sound like an aviation cynic, but for pilots (even in the non-commercial sector) spending 50 USD for a spark plug or 500 USD for a battery is “normal”.
Tiny bit of innovation and disruption = very very expensive in aviation.
Of that $1200/hr, $150/hr is fuel, $50/hr is engine maintenance, and maybe $100/hr airframe maintenance. These scale linearly with time. For fixed costs, a new helicopter is ~$3 million, so figure $300k per year in depreciation, taxes, insurance, and finance costs. Add another $150k/year for pilot salary and training. If you find lots of customers and keep the helicopter busy, say 1000 hours a year, there's $450 an hour for fixed costs.
The real key to reducing costs is increasing utilization, this keeps the fixed costs reasonable. Batteries and motor will likely improve fuel+engine cost, but also hurt utilization because charging takes more time than refueling. A large network improves utilization. But building a network, with various types of demand (leisure on weekends, business commute during weekdays, cargo during off-peak periods?), is the real challenge.
Uber, Lyft, Musk's Boring Company, and all their variants... there are tons of people working on improving commutes.
But IMO there isn't a technical problem to solve. It's social and political. We shouldn't be asking about improving commuting, but reducing its necessity and distance.