Building up on such a vision in Dresden, actually the starting point of the German railway industrie.

Creating the future building on the heritage:-))

Cheers,

Ralf

PS.: Actually there is no high-speed train network reaching out really to Dresden, and yet this is the driving force to install the super-high-speed information network based on the heritage of the railway.

It’s already been done. Google “Turbotrain”. Been there, done that, didn’t last.

High speed rail to Binhampton and Albany, making them essentially exurbs of Manhattan, would be pretty cool though. I just don’t think that its financially feasable.

Actually improved technology did help cause the Bos-Wash mega-region. Going back to paved roads, highways, trains in the 19th century, the interconnection of the cities made all of them more successful.

As above, flying short distances of 100-400 miles is a time waster, you can often drive faster. With the long lines and constant interruptions of flying, it’s basically wasted time compared to trains where you can get on and work. Driving is also wasted time.

Southwest is a great company, and in fact has replaced Greyhound as the travel choice of the masses.

The question is whether high-speed rail is a cost or an investment. I’d argue that it will pay back dividends in productivity and innovation that will outweigh the costs.

Isn’t there also a question of whether the overhead associated with building high-speed rail leads to greater efficiency than other offerings? Say Southwest Airlines?

If Greyhound buses couldn’t compete with existing auto/air and rail options, can something with infinitely higher fixed costs compete?

One of the lessons which will come from Internet Companies and become more apparent as the financial crisis works it way through the world is that companies carrying high debt loads will not be operationally efficient enough to compete with similar companies that have low debt load. Competition drives down margins and only companies/cities/mega-regions/states/Countries with the most efficient structures will survive.

Companies that take on the high fixed costs to build high-speed rail will not be price competitive with companies that don’t have those high fixed costs.

Mega-regions/states/countries that don’t have to service the debt loads incurred by large public works programs will be able to offer businesses lower cost/friendlier environments.

The question is whether you believe building a high speed rail network will cause growth (i.e. be a multiplier of the benefits derived from public funds spent) or whether you believe improved transportation methods are correlated to growth.

As before, high speed rail is ideal for cities over 100 and less than 400-500 miles apart — too far to drive, too close to fly. Rail will probably never make sense again across America or Canada, we’re too big — unlike Europe & Japan. It makes sense to fly from LA to NYC, or practically anywhere to Denver. It doesn’t make sense to fly from Portland to Seattle or Boston to NYC.