We've analyzed the impact of such mega-projects in over sixty countries. As it happens, the real economic impact is not the trains themselves, but rather building new supurbs around transfer points.

Supurbs are super-urban areas that can be thought of hyper-modern cities where the key point is to be able to scale infrastructure cheaply as needs change and population grows. There are some rules of thumb that apply to California and everywhere else:

1. it is too expensive, too disruptive and too slow to build a line into the heart of any modern city

2. maglevs like straight, flat lines. So do freeways. We are not fans of real estate speculation.

3. in a joint venture if Iran gets the revenues from the San Diego-Los Angeles link we doubt Hezbollah or anyone would be blowing it up. Likewise, if the US received tens of millions of dollars from the popular Bandar-e 'Abbas to Basra link along the eastern shore of the Persian Gulf we'd likely pick bombing targets elsewhere. Or not at all.

4. The real money in trains and transport is mixed mode – freight and passengers

5. In most countries we assume the army will be building and managing the maglevs while the navy handles the inter-modal ports. This means the links are well-built and travel is safe. Going back to the time of the Roman legions, and probably before, it also means that troops are defending something they built, travel on and that their families live near.

<click the Next below right to see the last portion>