7 ms·

Amazing. Writing this from Berlin, which doesn't have maglev trains, but has phenomenal public transit. It's sad to be going back to the US soon where the infra

Amazing. Writing this from Berlin, which doesn't have maglev trains, but has phenomenal public transit. It's sad to be going back to the US soon where the infrastructure is so primitive.

mmaldacker 11y ago
Berlin had a maglev metro for a short while back in 1989: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-Bahn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-Bahn
dheera 11y ago
Agreed. The current incarnation of the US transportation system is also downright unsustainable from a fuel and carbon standpoint, and will lead to various downfalls if something isn't done about it. As much as I'm a public transportation advocate (I don't own a car, and refuse car rides if a public transportation option is available for the place I need to get to), it's becoming increasingly more difficult to promote this kind of lifestyle with the advent of Uber and other things that have made private gas-guzzling cars even more convenient than ever before. People also just don't like being told what to do and what not to do, even if what they are doing is going to kill their children. Given the short-sighted nature of people, in general, the only way this is going to change is if we make public transportation more convenient than an Uber. What we need, very seriously, is to make self-driving cars/minibuses running on renewable energy happen as soon as possible. They can then be rigged up to become a "Public Transportation 2.0" system that gets anyone from A to B while dynamically routing and picking up others in-between and avoiding traffic jams from happening in the first place. It would also put the US back on the world map with a brand new, innovative system that's both environmentally efficient, cheaper to ride, and ultra-convenient at the same time.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  Many medium to low density counties in the US operate on demand bus services that get anyone from A to B while dynamically routing and picking up others in-between. They are usually subsidized (the county spends more than the service makes, so taxpayers are paying for the service) but still don't see the ridership it would take to justify higher service levels (these places generally don't have traffic jams, just short periods where you might have to wait for the second green to pass through a busy light). These counties already tend to be depopulating, which is the main way to reduce car traffic levels in such situations. Broader economic change has left them geographically uncompetitive, or automation has destroyed jobs in whatever extraction industry pulled in the population in the past. I think one of the best ways to improve the availability of public transport would be to treat rising housing prices as a government failure (it's currently considered a success when the value of someones home increases).
- apendleton 11y ago
  Huh. I have pretty much the opposite feelings about Uber as you, as a fellow non-driver and public transit advocate. I think Uber (and also car-sharing services like Zipcar) are great for transit advocates, because they make it much easier for city dwellers to justify not owning a car, to the extent that I suspect that they actually increase transit usage. Many people in my city (Washington, DC) that own cars don't actually need them most days, but they do have occasional needs that aren't easily doable by transit (Costco trips, driving out to see friends in the less-transit-friendly suburbs, hiking in Shenandoah, etc.) so they keep a car for that purpose. But the problem there is the incentives; the fixed costs of car ownership (a car payment, insurance, scheduled maintenance, etc.) are high, and once you've paid them, the incremental cost per mile of travel is really low (certainly way lower than the per-mile cost of transit), so if you have a car, you have a strong incentive to use it more than you need to. Uber and Zipcar are alternatives that make cars available in the circumstances where you need them and thus could allow these people to ditch their personal cars, and they also flip the cost incentives around: low-to-no fixed costs, and comparatively higher per-mile costs, which means you only use it if you really need it, and use transit most of the time.
  - dheera 11y ago
    Yeah, that's also true. It's very rare that I need to travel to a place that requires a car to get to, so I can spend on Uber in those cases, and that allows me to not own a car. However, this isn't the way a lot of people use Uber; at least where I live a lot of people use Uber because it's faster and more comfortable than public transportation, not because public transportation doesn't get them where they need to. I've seen business school students (i.e. students who have cash to burn) frequently take Uber between MIT and Harvard for god's sake. There's direct bus and subway service, but it involves a 5 minute walk on both ends, they're too lazy to look it up, and don't want to wait outside.
- akgerber 11y ago
  The real issue with automobiles and cities isn't so much the cars as the parking. Parking takes up a huge proportion of urban land and street space that could be used for exclusive bus lanes. Parking requirements makes the building blocks of classic urban neighborhoods, like townhouses, small apartment buildings, and storefronts with apartments above, illegal to build. Using land for parking vastly increases the distance between destinations, making walking impractical. When walking is impractical, transit systems become ineffective because there are too few homes or destinations near them for them to have customers.
Shivetya 11y ago
Primitive? Really? Doesn't seem to affect usage rates does it? Its a myth really, one that is perpetuated simply because people think its correct and far too many who like the idea of it being correct don't want to know otherwise. Maybe Berlin and Germany stand out amongst Europe, but with regards to passenger miles trains are less that seven percent of all travel within the EU [1]. High speed rail does two things, eats up a lot of money and takes riders of slower rail. Even Japan has seen this as when the amount of high speed rail made available increased overall ridership decreased. there is a lot of romance about trains but in the end they cost more per mile to build, use, and maintain, that even flying, in many areas. Slower than flying except over short distances and less convenient and timely over that short distance compared to cars. Public light rail is a boon doggle in many US cities, the costs to implement are beyond any reasonable time table of recovery. Freight is king of the rail in the US, even Europe envies its status here and that makes a far greater impact on the environment than moving people [1] http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3217494/5711595/KS-DA-09-001-EN.PDF/9c90d489-5009-4acc-9810-ae39612897d3?version=1.0 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3217494/5711595/KS-DA...
- tormeh 11y ago
  I think it's inner-city transport the parent is referring to. It really is fantastic in Berlin. Nothing beats a good metro for inner-city transport, and Berlin has it. Tokyo and New York is better, though, but then again those are vastly bigger cities. And yeah, long-range train passenger transport generally sucks but it's not really relevant, as it's not inner-city. Besides, train travel doesn't need to suck - Maglev may just go fast enough and be cheap enough to maintain to fix most of the problems. The train in the article will go for 40 minutes - that's far less than you need just to check in at the airport. And it will cover 330km - that's 4 hours by car. it would be foolish to pick any other means of transport between the two cities. It could go from SF to LA in 1h15m. Depending on how bad the airports are, it could even be competitive with air between NY and LA. But it won't become truly interesting until these trains go faster than planes (and I believe they will do so, eventually)
  - Shivetya 11y ago
    and I have no issues with inner city travel in Atlanta or Chicago. The issue at hand based on the original article is transport between cities. Hence the point I made is valid, the trope that Europe is some bastion of passenger transport by train simply isn't true, unless you count a few percentage points as an amazing number.
wahsd 11y ago
Don't be such an idiot. I get it, you enjoy European infrastructure and social democracy. Remember though that you will pay half of the taxes you pay in Germany ... oh, did you just enjoy all the benefits of German infrastructure and society without actually paying any taxes, let alone your whole life? No one is keeping you from remaining in Germany, are they? I can guarantee you they will approve your work permit and you can become a resident and eventual citizen. Sure, we have a "primitive" public transportation system, but owning a car is cheaper, and also remember Berlin's system is essentially new and was rebuilt after reunification so you are looking at a modern system. And also remember that it's pretty fucking expensive to link up places with public transportation in the USA. What? You want a double digit billion dollar MagLev train that connects Boise, Idaho with, St. Louise Missouri? That will be another 10% of your income since we maxed out our credit line giving free money to the crooks that robbed the vault. How about you simply enjoy that almost every single even moderately sized town in the USA has an airport and you can fly around for relatively cheap, even if the airlines have used regulatory capture to artificially inflate their revenues outside of market conditions.
- pbz 11y ago
  > You want a double digit billion dollar MagLev train that connects Boise, Idaho with, St. Louise Missouri? That will be another 10% of your income No, just reallocate some of the hundreds of billions spent on wars / military and make something productive.
  - atom-morgan 11y ago
    It's worth noting JR Central is a private company. So I don't think the Japanese are giving up any of their income unless they pay for a ride.
    - the8472 11y ago
      I would assume they get some govt subsidies in one form or another for building infrastructure.
dkhenry 11y ago
If you look at Washington DC's metro its pretty much the same QoS as you get off the Berlin metro. So I am not quite sure how its considered "primitive" Berlin - 4 - 5 minute trains DC - 6 minute trains Berlin - 9 lines, 170 stations DC - 6 lines, 91 stations and thats not even the biggest metro system in the US. So really the problem isn't going back to the US, its going back to whatever place you're going to in the US. I am sure if you moved out to Zwiesel you would be in the same situation
- nharada 11y ago
  Metro and subway systems in the US are to me basically comparable to systems abroad. I'd argue most US city rails are better than Berlin's. Where you immediately notice is longer distance commuter and cross-country lines. I often take the train from Chicago to Detroit, and every time we stop partway for ~15-30 mins because the company can't run trains in both directions on the tracks. Even when we are moving, most of the time we can't come close to our top speed of 130 mph because we aren't on high speed track. Compare this to EU trains which run across the country non-stop at top speeds of 180 mph. Granted, not everywhere has high quality service, but most major cities do, which definitely can't be said about the US.
  - kuschku 11y ago
    Here is a map of high speed rail in europe: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/High_Speed_Railroad_Map_of_Europe_2015.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/High_Spe... The <200km/h category in Germany, at least, is all 180km/h or higher.
  - dkhenry 11y ago
    That I can agree with. I don't often ride long distance rail because even on the Northeast line which is I think the line with the highest ridership you often have to stop for freight trains and other trains.
    - rayiner 11y ago
      I've never had to stop for a freight train on the northeast (between DC and NYC anyway), because Amtrak owns those tracks. You do sometimes have to stop for local commuter trains that share the tracks, or (more commonly) an acela overtaking a regional. By far the most common reason for delay, though, is the aging equipment.
odiroot 11y ago
The public transit is generally really phenomenal as you said but this year they went crazy with the renovation works. I mean closing down the most important train line (north-south) for more than 4 months? And now also splitting the east-west metro line in two (again for a few months). Aside from planned stuff tomorrow and Thursday the trains are off due to strikes. It happens multiple time a year as well. This usually leaves you with highly unreliable buses and trams.
rhino369 11y ago
Infrastructure isn't a one size fits all arrangement. Passenger rail was once common in America. In fact, America has twice as much rail as the next in line. Why don't we use it for transport? 1) Because we all have cars. Aside from a few outliers (NYC, parts of Chicago, DC, Bay Area), US cities are designed with high car ownership in mind. Less than 10% of US households don't have a car. Short train rides are less convenient than car trips. Especially since you'll most likely need a car at the destination. Trains also only take you to limited stops. Cars can take you anywhere. 2) Flights are faster for longer range trips and America is a fairly spread out country. Chicago to Denver would still be a long highspeed rail trip. 3)Trains only make sense for intermediate range trips that begin and end in cities that people will stay close to the train station. Washington to New York, train is the best option. But that sort of utility wouldn't support a robust nationwide network of passenger rail.
- Zach_the_Lizard 11y ago
  > But that sort of utility wouldn't support a robust nationwide network of passenger rail. You don't need nationwide, you need regional. The East Coast and parts of the Midwest would do well with a decent train network. Sure, Chicago to Denver is never going to be reasonable, but Chicago to Indianapolis or St. Louis? That could be a train trip. As American re-urbanizes, these sorts of trips become more and more reasonable to make by train as cars become less necessary.
tptacek 11y ago
It's easy to call other rail infrastructures "primitive" when your baseline is Berlin to Munich. The US eastern seaboard handles those routes well too. Rail doesn't do so well when you need NYC to Chicago (~800 miles).
- idlewords 11y ago
  You would really compare German intercity travel to Acela (i.e., rail service on the Boston-NYC-Philly-DC route)? Three differences that immediately come to mind: 1) Severely limited track speeds through the entire NE corridor. 2) A boarding experience that seems to be modeled on air travel, with security gates, ID checks and waiting rooms. 3) Very infrequent service compared to main intercity routes in Europe. Calling it primitive is provocative but pretty accurate.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    1) Totally fair: average speed from DC to BOS is half of Berlin-Hamburg. 2) That's not my Acela experience at all; last time I took it (a few years ago) it was no more involved than boarding a Metra train in Chicago. 3) Totally fair. I guess this is just knee-jerkism on my part. The topic comes up on HN every once in awhile about how backwards the US is w/r/t/ rail transport, and while you could still make a lot of strides on DC-BOS, there are good reasons why most of the country doesn't have rail connectivity. But that wasn't what was being argued here.
    - idlewords 11y ago
      I wonder if my experience with 2) was somehow special to Penn Station and Boston.

Amazing. Writing this from Berlin, which doesn't have maglev trains, but has phenomenal public transit. It's sad to be going back to the US soon where the infrastructure is so primitive.

mmaldacker 11y ago

Berlin had a maglev metro for a short while back in 1989: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-Bahn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-Bahn

dheera 11y ago

Agreed. The current incarnation of the US transportation system is also downright unsustainable from a fuel and carbon standpoint, and will lead to various downfalls if something isn't done about it. As much as I'm a public transportation advocate (I don't own a car, and refuse car rides if a public transportation option is available for the place I need to get to), it's becoming increasingly more difficult to promote this kind of lifestyle with the advent of Uber and other things that have made private gas-guzzling cars even more convenient than ever before. People also just don't like being told what to do and what not to do, even if what they are doing is going to kill their children. Given the short-sighted nature of people, in general, the only way this is going to change is if we make public transportation more convenient than an Uber. What we need, very seriously, is to make self-driving cars/minibuses running on renewable energy happen as soon as possible. They can then be rigged up to become a "Public Transportation 2.0" system that gets anyone from A to B while dynamically routing and picking up others in-between and avoiding traffic jams from happening in the first place. It would also put the US back on the world map with a brand new, innovative system that's both environmentally efficient, cheaper to ride, and ultra-convenient at the same time.

maxerickson 11y ago
Many medium to low density counties in the US operate on demand bus services that get anyone from A to B while dynamically routing and picking up others in-between. They are usually subsidized (the county spends more than the service makes, so taxpayers are paying for the service) but still don't see the ridership it would take to justify higher service levels (these places generally don't have traffic jams, just short periods where you might have to wait for the second green to pass through a busy light). These counties already tend to be depopulating, which is the main way to reduce car traffic levels in such situations. Broader economic change has left them geographically uncompetitive, or automation has destroyed jobs in whatever extraction industry pulled in the population in the past. I think one of the best ways to improve the availability of public transport would be to treat rising housing prices as a government failure (it's currently considered a success when the value of someones home increases).
apendleton 11y ago
Huh. I have pretty much the opposite feelings about Uber as you, as a fellow non-driver and public transit advocate. I think Uber (and also car-sharing services like Zipcar) are great for transit advocates, because they make it much easier for city dwellers to justify not owning a car, to the extent that I suspect that they actually increase transit usage. Many people in my city (Washington, DC) that own cars don't actually need them most days, but they do have occasional needs that aren't easily doable by transit (Costco trips, driving out to see friends in the less-transit-friendly suburbs, hiking in Shenandoah, etc.) so they keep a car for that purpose. But the problem there is the incentives; the fixed costs of car ownership (a car payment, insurance, scheduled maintenance, etc.) are high, and once you've paid them, the incremental cost per mile of travel is really low (certainly way lower than the per-mile cost of transit), so if you have a car, you have a strong incentive to use it more than you need to. Uber and Zipcar are alternatives that make cars available in the circumstances where you need them and thus could allow these people to ditch their personal cars, and they also flip the cost incentives around: low-to-no fixed costs, and comparatively higher per-mile costs, which means you only use it if you really need it, and use transit most of the time.
- dheera 11y ago
  Yeah, that's also true. It's very rare that I need to travel to a place that requires a car to get to, so I can spend on Uber in those cases, and that allows me to not own a car. However, this isn't the way a lot of people use Uber; at least where I live a lot of people use Uber because it's faster and more comfortable than public transportation, not because public transportation doesn't get them where they need to. I've seen business school students (i.e. students who have cash to burn) frequently take Uber between MIT and Harvard for god's sake. There's direct bus and subway service, but it involves a 5 minute walk on both ends, they're too lazy to look it up, and don't want to wait outside.
akgerber 11y ago
The real issue with automobiles and cities isn't so much the cars as the parking. Parking takes up a huge proportion of urban land and street space that could be used for exclusive bus lanes. Parking requirements makes the building blocks of classic urban neighborhoods, like townhouses, small apartment buildings, and storefronts with apartments above, illegal to build. Using land for parking vastly increases the distance between destinations, making walking impractical. When walking is impractical, transit systems become ineffective because there are too few homes or destinations near them for them to have customers.

Shivetya 11y ago

Primitive? Really? Doesn't seem to affect usage rates does it? Its a myth really, one that is perpetuated simply because people think its correct and far too many who like the idea of it being correct don't want to know otherwise. Maybe Berlin and Germany stand out amongst Europe, but with regards to passenger miles trains are less that seven percent of all travel within the EU [1]. High speed rail does two things, eats up a lot of money and takes riders of slower rail. Even Japan has seen this as when the amount of high speed rail made available increased overall ridership decreased. there is a lot of romance about trains but in the end they cost more per mile to build, use, and maintain, that even flying, in many areas. Slower than flying except over short distances and less convenient and timely over that short distance compared to cars. Public light rail is a boon doggle in many US cities, the costs to implement are beyond any reasonable time table of recovery. Freight is king of the rail in the US, even Europe envies its status here and that makes a far greater impact on the environment than moving people [1] http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3217494/5711595/KS-DA-09-001-EN.PDF/9c90d489-5009-4acc-9810-ae39612897d3?version=1.0 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3217494/5711595/KS-DA...

tormeh 11y ago
I think it's inner-city transport the parent is referring to. It really is fantastic in Berlin. Nothing beats a good metro for inner-city transport, and Berlin has it. Tokyo and New York is better, though, but then again those are vastly bigger cities. And yeah, long-range train passenger transport generally sucks but it's not really relevant, as it's not inner-city. Besides, train travel doesn't need to suck - Maglev may just go fast enough and be cheap enough to maintain to fix most of the problems. The train in the article will go for 40 minutes - that's far less than you need just to check in at the airport. And it will cover 330km - that's 4 hours by car. it would be foolish to pick any other means of transport between the two cities. It could go from SF to LA in 1h15m. Depending on how bad the airports are, it could even be competitive with air between NY and LA. But it won't become truly interesting until these trains go faster than planes (and I believe they will do so, eventually)
- Shivetya 11y ago
  and I have no issues with inner city travel in Atlanta or Chicago. The issue at hand based on the original article is transport between cities. Hence the point I made is valid, the trope that Europe is some bastion of passenger transport by train simply isn't true, unless you count a few percentage points as an amazing number.

wahsd 11y ago

Don't be such an idiot. I get it, you enjoy European infrastructure and social democracy. Remember though that you will pay half of the taxes you pay in Germany ... oh, did you just enjoy all the benefits of German infrastructure and society without actually paying any taxes, let alone your whole life? No one is keeping you from remaining in Germany, are they? I can guarantee you they will approve your work permit and you can become a resident and eventual citizen. Sure, we have a "primitive" public transportation system, but owning a car is cheaper, and also remember Berlin's system is essentially new and was rebuilt after reunification so you are looking at a modern system. And also remember that it's pretty fucking expensive to link up places with public transportation in the USA. What? You want a double digit billion dollar MagLev train that connects Boise, Idaho with, St. Louise Missouri? That will be another 10% of your income since we maxed out our credit line giving free money to the crooks that robbed the vault. How about you simply enjoy that almost every single even moderately sized town in the USA has an airport and you can fly around for relatively cheap, even if the airlines have used regulatory capture to artificially inflate their revenues outside of market conditions.

pbz 11y ago
> You want a double digit billion dollar MagLev train that connects Boise, Idaho with, St. Louise Missouri? That will be another 10% of your income No, just reallocate some of the hundreds of billions spent on wars / military and make something productive.
- atom-morgan 11y ago
  It's worth noting JR Central is a private company. So I don't think the Japanese are giving up any of their income unless they pay for a ride.
  - the8472 11y ago
    I would assume they get some govt subsidies in one form or another for building infrastructure.

dkhenry 11y ago

If you look at Washington DC's metro its pretty much the same QoS as you get off the Berlin metro. So I am not quite sure how its considered "primitive" Berlin - 4 - 5 minute trains DC - 6 minute trains Berlin - 9 lines, 170 stations DC - 6 lines, 91 stations and thats not even the biggest metro system in the US. So really the problem isn't going back to the US, its going back to whatever place you're going to in the US. I am sure if you moved out to Zwiesel you would be in the same situation

nharada 11y ago
Metro and subway systems in the US are to me basically comparable to systems abroad. I'd argue most US city rails are better than Berlin's. Where you immediately notice is longer distance commuter and cross-country lines. I often take the train from Chicago to Detroit, and every time we stop partway for ~15-30 mins because the company can't run trains in both directions on the tracks. Even when we are moving, most of the time we can't come close to our top speed of 130 mph because we aren't on high speed track. Compare this to EU trains which run across the country non-stop at top speeds of 180 mph. Granted, not everywhere has high quality service, but most major cities do, which definitely can't be said about the US.
- kuschku 11y ago
  Here is a map of high speed rail in europe: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/High_Speed_Railroad_Map_of_Europe_2015.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/High_Spe... The <200km/h category in Germany, at least, is all 180km/h or higher.
- dkhenry 11y ago
  That I can agree with. I don't often ride long distance rail because even on the Northeast line which is I think the line with the highest ridership you often have to stop for freight trains and other trains.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    I've never had to stop for a freight train on the northeast (between DC and NYC anyway), because Amtrak owns those tracks. You do sometimes have to stop for local commuter trains that share the tracks, or (more commonly) an acela overtaking a regional. By far the most common reason for delay, though, is the aging equipment.

odiroot 11y ago

The public transit is generally really phenomenal as you said but this year they went crazy with the renovation works. I mean closing down the most important train line (north-south) for more than 4 months? And now also splitting the east-west metro line in two (again for a few months). Aside from planned stuff tomorrow and Thursday the trains are off due to strikes. It happens multiple time a year as well. This usually leaves you with highly unreliable buses and trams.

rhino369 11y ago

Infrastructure isn't a one size fits all arrangement. Passenger rail was once common in America. In fact, America has twice as much rail as the next in line. Why don't we use it for transport? 1) Because we all have cars. Aside from a few outliers (NYC, parts of Chicago, DC, Bay Area), US cities are designed with high car ownership in mind. Less than 10% of US households don't have a car. Short train rides are less convenient than car trips. Especially since you'll most likely need a car at the destination. Trains also only take you to limited stops. Cars can take you anywhere. 2) Flights are faster for longer range trips and America is a fairly spread out country. Chicago to Denver would still be a long highspeed rail trip. 3)Trains only make sense for intermediate range trips that begin and end in cities that people will stay close to the train station. Washington to New York, train is the best option. But that sort of utility wouldn't support a robust nationwide network of passenger rail.

Zach_the_Lizard 11y ago
> But that sort of utility wouldn't support a robust nationwide network of passenger rail. You don't need nationwide, you need regional. The East Coast and parts of the Midwest would do well with a decent train network. Sure, Chicago to Denver is never going to be reasonable, but Chicago to Indianapolis or St. Louis? That could be a train trip. As American re-urbanizes, these sorts of trips become more and more reasonable to make by train as cars become less necessary.

tptacek 11y ago

It's easy to call other rail infrastructures "primitive" when your baseline is Berlin to Munich. The US eastern seaboard handles those routes well too. Rail doesn't do so well when you need NYC to Chicago (~800 miles).

idlewords 11y ago
You would really compare German intercity travel to Acela (i.e., rail service on the Boston-NYC-Philly-DC route)? Three differences that immediately come to mind: 1) Severely limited track speeds through the entire NE corridor. 2) A boarding experience that seems to be modeled on air travel, with security gates, ID checks and waiting rooms. 3) Very infrequent service compared to main intercity routes in Europe. Calling it primitive is provocative but pretty accurate.
- tptacek 11y ago
  1) Totally fair: average speed from DC to BOS is half of Berlin-Hamburg. 2) That's not my Acela experience at all; last time I took it (a few years ago) it was no more involved than boarding a Metra train in Chicago. 3) Totally fair. I guess this is just knee-jerkism on my part. The topic comes up on HN every once in awhile about how backwards the US is w/r/t/ rail transport, and while you could still make a lot of strides on DC-BOS, there are good reasons why most of the country doesn't have rail connectivity. But that wasn't what was being argued here.
  - idlewords 11y ago
    I wonder if my experience with 2) was somehow special to Penn Station and Boston.