I feel your pain the MBTA "massachussets bus and train acc." sucks dicks for breakfast on that kind of shit. theres always a "Signal problem" or disabled train causing delays. I need to go to work man, not OK.

and this is different from flight delays, how?

stop subsidizing the auto and aero industries and i'll bet amtrak magically starts getting on time..

>>171854
It's actually the freight trains that is causing the problem. Federal law can be changed to allow passenger trains the highest priority on the railways.

>>171875
elsewhere the railways are ordinarily administered by a state body to ensure uniform standards and everyones use of it, with freight on spurs and/or at night
unless its in the middle of nowhere like the ore trains in Australia, then sure they can own their own private railway.

>>171878
Therein lies the problem. The subscribing railways prefer to put their own traffic first. In the UK, where train and track are separate, there is an arrangement whereby the network favours passengers by day and freight by night, which is part of why drivers earn more with freight operators.

>>171839
I missed a connection in Chicago once on Amtrak due to a delay, and had to wait 24 hours for the next train on the same route. However, they did put us up in a luxury hotel and we got to spend a day sightseeing in Chicago, so it wasn't all bad.

Realistically, the problem is not going to change anytime soon: freight has priority because freight owns the track.

>>171875
>Federal law can be changed to allow passenger trains the highest priority on the railways.
It could, but it won't be. The railways, and industry in general, would have a shit fit. It would represent a MASSIVE power grab by Congress, since the lines are privately-owned. Also, as it presently stands, freight rail is far more important to the economy than passenger rail.

Obviously it needs to be remedied, but until proponents can point to significantly more public support for rail than it now has, nothing will happen. In all likelihood, unless and until passenger rail is profitable enough to be re-privatized, nothing will happen.

>>171839
OP, at this point, it's just easier to fund new line explicitly for passenger service.

>>172029
so scale up passenger Public Transportation

>>172038
US fed gov't is in debt. They'd be funding high-speed rail anyways. Amtrak averages 70 mph ~ 112 kmph. Slow as hell.

>>172055
the debt is mainly from military spending + medicare having to work through private system
slash defence budget, universal healthcare

>>171875
>>172029
> Federal law can be changed to allow passenger trains the highest priority on the railways
this isn't law already? the BNSF gives passenger trains highest priority. i thought it was at least common (if not mandatory)...

>>172070
That's what the law says, yes. It's just that Amtrak is a joke outside the Northeast and the freight lines routinely ignore the law.

>>172070
rail is fuckedup in the USA, look at the 79mph restriction and the safety regulations forcing trains to be built like tanks

>>172078

And yet somehow, people want the *government* to will a world-class high-speed rail network into existence.

>>172086
who else but the government can lift the hilariously outdated and disproved-in-practice laws?

>>172070
>>172077
freight operators and state passenger rail services in the North East prioritize their shit ahead of Amtrak in the Northeast too, one of the many things that slows down the Acela.

>>172086
deliberate government intervention and willful neglect are the cause of this
there is no reason that under popular control this cannot be reversed.
And who runs the rail systems elsewhere in the world?
SNCF in France is a government owned corporation just like Amtrak and they work fine.

haters gonna hate