3 ms·

Chomsky complains that catching a train from Boston to New York is not any faster than it was for him in the 50's; I'm not expert on US rail but it does seem to

Chomsky complains that catching a train from Boston to New York is not any faster than it was for him in the 50's; I'm not expert on US rail but it does seem to be behind if you compare to Europe and Asia's high speed rail networks.

throwanem 10y ago
He must've been writing before the Acela Express made its debut. But Boston and New York are close enough that I'd argue true high-speed rail isn't all that much needed. Which is good, because there's no way in hell our government-supported passenger rail monopoly could ever implement it. That's half the problem right there - nobody can compete with Amtrak because Amtrak can undercut everyone, so Amtrak's service can suck as much as it likes. (Which is not all that much, in the Northeast Corridor! What we have there may not be super fast, but it is reliable and comfortable. Everywhere else in the US seems a different story.)
- mikeash 10y ago
  Acela is pathetic. For Boston to New York, it saves 30 minutes over the regular train, reducing the 4 hour journey to 3:30. I'd say that's close enough to casually describe as "not any faster," especially when many other civilized countries' trains cover that sort of distance in an hour or so.
- ericd 10y ago
  Acela Express is barely faster than the existing trains, because most of the track isn't high-speed capable. And I certainly wouldn't mind 1 hour service between northeastern cities... NYC to Boston is a bit shorter than the TGV main high speed trunk in France (Paris-Lyon, 300 km vs ~450), and DC to Boston is longer (630 km). Currently, Acela takes 3.5 hours NYC-BOS. TGV best case (300 km/hr) would shave a lot of time off there. Amtrak is government supported to a very limited extent compared to road traffic. If rail maintenance was paid for by the government, like all road maintenance is, it would be substantially more competitive cost-wise with other forms of travel. They're not terrible because they're sitting on a monopoly, they're terrible because their budget has been kept at barely life-support levels by congress.
  - arprocter 10y ago
    >Currently, Acela takes 3.5 hours NYC-BOS Which is the same time it takes by car, and only an hour less than it takes by bus, plus the train costs a lot more. Pretty embarrassing situation, IMO.
- monodeldiablo 10y ago
  I've never had any issues with Amtrak's service. People forget that they're second-class citizens to freight on the track, so they're usually not to blame for being late and they're held back by the infrastructure, which is designed, owned, and maintained by freight companies. I know it's accepted in the HN community to be down on government monopolies, but a quick glance at the privatization disaster of British Rail should be enough to convince even die-hard free market advocates that there's a place for Amtrak. It may not be efficient per se, but a democratically-accountable monopoly is certainly the most efficient model I've seen for passenger rail.
  - Inconel 10y ago
    I'm not at all discounting your point, but isn't Japan's rail system made up of various private rail companies? Or are those quasi governmental?
    - monodeldiablo 10y ago
      I believe it's half-and-half. I think they fully privatized the JR regions that earn decent profits, but the government subsidizes/operates the less profitable regions. I honestly don't know much about it, though.
    - oftenwrong 10y ago
      It's "all of the above". Private, public, and quasi-governmental (public-private partnerships). The "public" side can be at any level: national, prefectural, municipal, etc.
  - arprocter 10y ago
    Say what you will about BR privatization, but this[0] goes from London to Manchester in 2 hours (takes about 3 by road if you really push it on the M6 toll and M40). They also serve (overpriced) beer. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_390 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_390
    - monodeldiablo 10y ago

throwanem 10y ago

He must've been writing before the Acela Express made its debut. But Boston and New York are close enough that I'd argue true high-speed rail isn't all that much needed. Which is good, because there's no way in hell our government-supported passenger rail monopoly could ever implement it. That's half the problem right there - nobody can compete with Amtrak because Amtrak can undercut everyone, so Amtrak's service can suck as much as it likes. (Which is not all that much, in the Northeast Corridor! What we have there may not be super fast, but it is reliable and comfortable. Everywhere else in the US seems a different story.)

mikeash 10y ago
Acela is pathetic. For Boston to New York, it saves 30 minutes over the regular train, reducing the 4 hour journey to 3:30. I'd say that's close enough to casually describe as "not any faster," especially when many other civilized countries' trains cover that sort of distance in an hour or so.
ericd 10y ago
Acela Express is barely faster than the existing trains, because most of the track isn't high-speed capable. And I certainly wouldn't mind 1 hour service between northeastern cities... NYC to Boston is a bit shorter than the TGV main high speed trunk in France (Paris-Lyon, 300 km vs ~450), and DC to Boston is longer (630 km). Currently, Acela takes 3.5 hours NYC-BOS. TGV best case (300 km/hr) would shave a lot of time off there. Amtrak is government supported to a very limited extent compared to road traffic. If rail maintenance was paid for by the government, like all road maintenance is, it would be substantially more competitive cost-wise with other forms of travel. They're not terrible because they're sitting on a monopoly, they're terrible because their budget has been kept at barely life-support levels by congress.
- arprocter 10y ago
  >Currently, Acela takes 3.5 hours NYC-BOS Which is the same time it takes by car, and only an hour less than it takes by bus, plus the train costs a lot more. Pretty embarrassing situation, IMO.
monodeldiablo 10y ago
I've never had any issues with Amtrak's service. People forget that they're second-class citizens to freight on the track, so they're usually not to blame for being late and they're held back by the infrastructure, which is designed, owned, and maintained by freight companies. I know it's accepted in the HN community to be down on government monopolies, but a quick glance at the privatization disaster of British Rail should be enough to convince even die-hard free market advocates that there's a place for Amtrak. It may not be efficient per se, but a democratically-accountable monopoly is certainly the most efficient model I've seen for passenger rail.
- Inconel 10y ago
  I'm not at all discounting your point, but isn't Japan's rail system made up of various private rail companies? Or are those quasi governmental?
  - monodeldiablo 10y ago
    I believe it's half-and-half. I think they fully privatized the JR regions that earn decent profits, but the government subsidizes/operates the less profitable regions. I honestly don't know much about it, though.
  - oftenwrong 10y ago
    It's "all of the above". Private, public, and quasi-governmental (public-private partnerships). The "public" side can be at any level: national, prefectural, municipal, etc.
- arprocter 10y ago
  Say what you will about BR privatization, but this[0] goes from London to Manchester in 2 hours (takes about 3 by road if you really push it on the M6 toll and M40). They also serve (overpriced) beer. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_390 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_390
  - monodeldiablo 10y ago