Given that providing for mini-ducts during the construction of a building has only a limited incremental cost while retrofitting buildings with high-speed infrastructure may represent a significant part of the cost of high-speed network deployment, all new buildings or buildings subject to major renovation should be equipped with physical infrastructure, allowing the connection of end-users with high-speed networks.

In view of the social benefits stemming from digital inclusion and taking into account the economics of deployment of high-speed electronic communications networks, where there is neither existing passive or active high-speed-ready infrastructure serving end-users' premises nor alternatives to providing high-speed electronic communications networks to a subscriber, any public communications network provider should have the right to terminate its network to a private premise at its own costs, provided that the impact on private property is minimised, for example, if possible, by reusing the existing physical infrastructure available in th ...[+++]e building or ensuring full restoration of the affected areas.

The environmental impact of the projects concerning the design of a line specially built for high-speed or on the occasion of line upgrading for high-speed shall take into account noise emission characteristics of the trains complying with the High-Speed Rolling Stock TSI at their maximum allowed local speed.

For the trains complying with the High-Speed Rolling Stock TSI, the Infrastructure Manager shall take into account the real speed of the trains and the maximum limit value of the aerodynamic effects given (for a speed equal to 300 km/h) by the High-Speed Rolling Stock TSI, section 4.2.6.2.1.

specially upgraded high-speed lines or lines specially built for high speed and connected to the high-speed rail network which have special features as a result of topographical or environmental, relief or town-planning constraints, on which speed must be adapted individually.

In 1995 the tripartite report concluded that a high-speed rail system at 300 kilometres per hour or more provides financial results superior to slower-speed alternatives, sufficient potential ridership exists in the corridor to sustain a profitable high-speed rail operation, a wholly owned private sector option is neither viable nor financeable, 70% to 75% of the costs would likely have to be paid by the public sector, and the initiative for the next stage lies with the private sector.