Would this scale? I don’t think cars and planes are miserable primarily because of speed. I don’t want crowded roads and I don’t want weather delays.

It’s hard to imagine cars and planes becoming fundamentally that much better because of the problems we have scaling them now, compared to trains which, maybe has problems if you try to convert everyone to them, but are generally speaking a positive experience.

What an absurd argument. His main point is not about abundance or about any specific technological aspect of trains, but rather their aesthetics in his feeling that they belong in a previous century.

There are things that trains do exceptionally well, far better than planes or cars. And there are things that planes and cars do exceptionally well, far better than trains. And all three have trade-offs and externalities that a true abundance society would at least attempt to balance.

An abundant society is one that does not put up arbitrary roadblocks in front of people who want to deploy useful technology. Asking that your technology not break other people‘s windows or wake them up in the middle of the night is not an arbitrary roadblock. It’s a reflection of inherent trade-off of a specific type of technology and societies attempt to balance it with the need to sleep and avoid externalities.

This argument ignores an even more fundamental aspect of abundance. That a great deal of transportation demand is not driven by transportation, but by arbitrary limits on construction. No not everyone wants to live in the city and that’s fine. But if they were allowed, millions of millions up on millions of people would live closer to their destinations, then they currently do, requiring less logical innovation in transportation that is required if they are forced to live hundreds of miles away.

If trains are not an "abundance technology", then I don't know what people mean by "abundance technology". I would have thought it meant a technology that increases abundance, but perhaps I misunderstand.