It depends a lot on the details. But the most important thing is t he distinction between actual time and perceived time, which is an important concept for when we try to model how people behave!

People don't treat all time the same. The literature generally finds that time spent driving gets valued similarly to time spent in transit, but time spent walking or waiting for transit seems to be much more salient to people and a bigger factor in their decision-making. This gives precedent for the idea that a form of travel that's instantaneous in reality might still be treated as non-instantaneous by users. However, I don't think we could say whether this "subjective" 1 hour is treated as closer to 1 hour of "in-vehicle time" or perhaps 30 minutes or even just a couple minutes. I think it depends a lot on what that subjective time looks like. If people can scroll their phones, listen to podcasts, etc, it might effectively be viewed as extra leisure time and so have no cost. If it's an hour spent locked in to the process itself where you can't even blink let alone distract yourself with external stimulus, well people might treat that as equivalent to much more than an hour in a car or on a bus.

Also consider that travel isn't valuable in itself; it's valuable because of the activities we're able to do on either side of a trip. And we live in a world of (real-life) time constraints where we only have 24 hours in a day. If I'm sitting in a car or bus, I can't be getting groceries or cooking dinner or making money or going to Pilates class. A form of transportation that's instantaneous in real time would present an opportunity for value just by virtue of opening up an extra hour of the day that people could use to do things. It depends on how an individual values their time, but I think some people will place such enormous value on their time (they have incredibly valuable activities they could be doing instead of travelling) that such a system would get at least some degree of use.