It being obvious that people wouldn't want tickets because it's unpleasant, and operating being expensive because it's unreliable were contributing factors in it being uneconomical.
The env damaging part was only over land and there were plenty of niches for it. It could have done just fine over oceans. Late 70s/early 80s would have loved an SST going west coast to Japan and Hawaii.
> It being obvious that people wouldn't want tickets because it's unpleasant (1), and operating being expensive because it's unreliable(2) were contributing factors in it being uneconomical.
I'll need a cite for (1) and (2). I don't believe it.
Your wiki citation talks about it in the botched transition from swing wings to a fixed delta wings. The swing wings were unreliable, and caused quite a bit more chatter in a larger design like an airliner compared to designs like the F-14 (which already aren't really known for being a smooth ride). Converting the design to be a fixed delta wing aircraft had them using crazy ideas like using more or less solid titanium in the air frame, which was never going to be financially viable in the airliner space.
You can see some of this today in B-1 lancers, which are very much known for being rough rides, and are pretty close to a half billion dollars a piece compared to <$100M for a B-52 which is significantly closer to airliners wrt design philosophy and cost, and reliability (the B-52 has something like an ~80% ready rate, compared to the B-1's ~50% ready rate).
It's pretty clear why it was cancelled, and it wasn't because it was unreliable and unpleasant like the Concordski. Newer designs learn from older ones, and you can't tell something like unreliable and unpleasant from an airplane that never flew, and didn't even have a completed design.
That's why .gov dropped their funding and cancelled it.