4 ms·

There is no excuse for the US’s failure. Many countries have large areas to cover. China is a similar size and has massive HSR coverage. The US could too if the

There is no excuse for the US’s failure. Many countries have large areas to cover. China is a similar size and has massive HSR coverage. The US could too if they didn’t waste all the money on corruption.

Conan_Kudo 7mo ago
China also has nationalized rail systems. The major reason for the failure in the US is that the rail lines are not publicly owned. The reason the rail systems never got upgraded and Amtrak couldn't deploy high speed rail everywhere (despite it being a national priority in the 70s, 80s, and 90s) is that outside of the northeast corridor, Amtrak doesn't own the lines and couldn't get the owners to allow Amtrak to upgrade them for passenger high speed rail.
- jabl 7mo ago
  > China also has nationalized rail systems. The major reason for the failure in the US is that the rail lines are not publicly owned. The article we're discussing explains that Japan has the best passenger rail system in the world, and which happens to be privatized, along with privately owned track. So which one is it? Go figure.
  - Tor3 7mo ago
    I believe the Japanese private rail companies also own the lines where their traffic is. This would explain a lot. There are other countries (including my native one) where the trains are run by one company and the lines are owned by another. This does.not.work. For what seems like obvious reasons. There's no economic gain for the owner of the infrastructure to spend money, quite the opposite in fact.
    - KptMarchewa 7mo ago
      In every EU country the infrastructure company (companies) is separate from companies that operate trains, with some usually small exceptions.
      - presentation 7mo ago
        Well, to be honest, the results in Japan and China, where that isn’t the case, have turned out to be much better.
        jabl 7mo ago
        The interesting thing is how the EU railway policy just keeps plowing ahead trying to impose the "vertical separation" approach in the EU, despite the disastrous results from the UK experience (and some EU countries to a somewhat lesser extent, so far the UK seems to be the only example of going all-in on that approach).
      - jabl 7mo ago
        Most EU countries have adopted the approach of putting the infrastructure company and the public train company under the same holding company, which is sort-of the minimum that EU regulations demand. In practice, in many countries the previous national rail company (under whatever conglomerate structure it may be operating under today) is fiercely protective of its own turf and tries to prevent new entrants, and digging their heels in implementing EU railway competition regulations. So complying with the letter of the law, but does everything in its powers to not comply with the spirit. Then again, given the UK experience of going all-in on the "vertical separation" and privatization path, perhaps one shouldn't blame them.
    - Tiktaalik 7mo ago
      Many of these lines were built by the public, then privatized.
      - Tor3 7mo ago
        But maintained and extended today by e.g. JR Eeast.
        kalleboo 7mo ago
        A lot of the lines are still being built, maintained and extended by the state and then leased out to the regional JRs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Railway_Construction,_Transport_and_Technology_Agency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Railway_Construction,_Tr...
  - Philpax 7mo ago
    While I agree with you, their system did not start privatised, and the Shinkansens predate privatisation by some time. I don't have the evidence to justify this, but I suspect that you need national buy-in - both financially and politically - to start a HSR build-out, which could then potentially be privatised at a later stage.
  - floatrock 7mo ago
    Calling Japan Rail privatized is a "ehhh, kinda, in some places, if you squint" kinda thing. Technically, yes, the JR's are private companies. But track construction is generally done by a government construction company financed with Japanese sovereign debt. The completed tracks are then long-term leased to the JR's at favorable rates. Is it really a private company if the key capital outlay is done by the government and given to you with a sweetheart deal? ehhhhhh.... you can call the operator company private, but you're being dishonest if you call the system privatized.
radicalbyte 7mo ago
Russia is far larger and far less populated, it's an economic backwater and a cultural dead end. Yet despite that they have rail connecting their country together.
- hirako2000 7mo ago
  So did France. There is a common factor at play with Russia. Has little to do with the country's shape. It's like saying certain rats solve the maze because the path is simpler. Except that the failing rats happen to have a different incentive.
  - williamdclt 7mo ago
    > So did France. There is a common factor at play with Russia. Has little to do with the country's shape. You'll have to make yourself clearer, I have no idea what you're implying
    - hirako2000 7mo ago
      I implied that when a nation decides that transport infrastructure is a strategic investment, a decades long initiative, funded by the Public sector, it yields better results. The private sector unfortunately is too short sighted, and will optimize for profit. Doesn't seem to work well for nationwide infrastructure..that being railroads, but also the internet.
- nephihaha 7mo ago
  Once you get past the Urals, most of Russia's development is along an east west axis until you reach Baikal and the the far east. Also as a Marxist dictatorship for some years, there was little emphasis on independent travel (cars etc) To call Russia a "cultural dead end" is a bit much, considering all the great artists of various kinds that country has produced. In fact, you'll find that famous Russian novels like Anna Karenina and Doctor Zhivago feature trains as motifs.
  - 7mo ago
nephihaha 7mo ago
"The US could too if they didn’t waste all the money on corruption." China is also corrupt, but it is a dictatorship with massive central planning. Central planning leads to wastage and human costs in many areas but it is good at producing new infrastructure.
barney54 7mo ago
What is this corruption you are talking about? What specifically are you talking about? Things you don’t like aren’t necessarily the result of corruption.

Conan_Kudo 7mo ago

China also has nationalized rail systems. The major reason for the failure in the US is that the rail lines are not publicly owned. The reason the rail systems never got upgraded and Amtrak couldn't deploy high speed rail everywhere (despite it being a national priority in the 70s, 80s, and 90s) is that outside of the northeast corridor, Amtrak doesn't own the lines and couldn't get the owners to allow Amtrak to upgrade them for passenger high speed rail.

jabl 7mo ago
> China also has nationalized rail systems. The major reason for the failure in the US is that the rail lines are not publicly owned. The article we're discussing explains that Japan has the best passenger rail system in the world, and which happens to be privatized, along with privately owned track. So which one is it? Go figure.
- Tor3 7mo ago
  I believe the Japanese private rail companies also own the lines where their traffic is. This would explain a lot. There are other countries (including my native one) where the trains are run by one company and the lines are owned by another. This does.not.work. For what seems like obvious reasons. There's no economic gain for the owner of the infrastructure to spend money, quite the opposite in fact.
  - KptMarchewa 7mo ago
    In every EU country the infrastructure company (companies) is separate from companies that operate trains, with some usually small exceptions.
    - presentation 7mo ago
      Well, to be honest, the results in Japan and China, where that isn’t the case, have turned out to be much better.
      - jabl 7mo ago
        The interesting thing is how the EU railway policy just keeps plowing ahead trying to impose the "vertical separation" approach in the EU, despite the disastrous results from the UK experience (and some EU countries to a somewhat lesser extent, so far the UK seems to be the only example of going all-in on that approach).
    - jabl 7mo ago
      Most EU countries have adopted the approach of putting the infrastructure company and the public train company under the same holding company, which is sort-of the minimum that EU regulations demand. In practice, in many countries the previous national rail company (under whatever conglomerate structure it may be operating under today) is fiercely protective of its own turf and tries to prevent new entrants, and digging their heels in implementing EU railway competition regulations. So complying with the letter of the law, but does everything in its powers to not comply with the spirit. Then again, given the UK experience of going all-in on the "vertical separation" and privatization path, perhaps one shouldn't blame them.
  - Tiktaalik 7mo ago
    Many of these lines were built by the public, then privatized.
    - Tor3 7mo ago
      But maintained and extended today by e.g. JR Eeast.
      - kalleboo 7mo ago
        A lot of the lines are still being built, maintained and extended by the state and then leased out to the regional JRs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Railway_Construction,_Transport_and_Technology_Agency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Railway_Construction,_Tr...
- Philpax 7mo ago
  While I agree with you, their system did not start privatised, and the Shinkansens predate privatisation by some time. I don't have the evidence to justify this, but I suspect that you need national buy-in - both financially and politically - to start a HSR build-out, which could then potentially be privatised at a later stage.
- floatrock 7mo ago
  Calling Japan Rail privatized is a "ehhh, kinda, in some places, if you squint" kinda thing. Technically, yes, the JR's are private companies. But track construction is generally done by a government construction company financed with Japanese sovereign debt. The completed tracks are then long-term leased to the JR's at favorable rates. Is it really a private company if the key capital outlay is done by the government and given to you with a sweetheart deal? ehhhhhh.... you can call the operator company private, but you're being dishonest if you call the system privatized.

radicalbyte 7mo ago

Russia is far larger and far less populated, it's an economic backwater and a cultural dead end. Yet despite that they have rail connecting their country together.

hirako2000 7mo ago
So did France. There is a common factor at play with Russia. Has little to do with the country's shape. It's like saying certain rats solve the maze because the path is simpler. Except that the failing rats happen to have a different incentive.
- williamdclt 7mo ago
  > So did France. There is a common factor at play with Russia. Has little to do with the country's shape. You'll have to make yourself clearer, I have no idea what you're implying
  - hirako2000 7mo ago
    I implied that when a nation decides that transport infrastructure is a strategic investment, a decades long initiative, funded by the Public sector, it yields better results. The private sector unfortunately is too short sighted, and will optimize for profit. Doesn't seem to work well for nationwide infrastructure..that being railroads, but also the internet.
nephihaha 7mo ago
Once you get past the Urals, most of Russia's development is along an east west axis until you reach Baikal and the the far east. Also as a Marxist dictatorship for some years, there was little emphasis on independent travel (cars etc) To call Russia a "cultural dead end" is a bit much, considering all the great artists of various kinds that country has produced. In fact, you'll find that famous Russian novels like Anna Karenina and Doctor Zhivago feature trains as motifs.
- 7mo ago

nephihaha 7mo ago

"The US could too if they didn’t waste all the money on corruption." China is also corrupt, but it is a dictatorship with massive central planning. Central planning leads to wastage and human costs in many areas but it is good at producing new infrastructure.

barney54 7mo ago

What is this corruption you are talking about? What specifically are you talking about? Things you don’t like aren’t necessarily the result of corruption.