> Private industry tends to be far more efficient at making “stuff that works” than a non-profit governmental organization.
If that were true, then why doesn't the US have a single high speed train?
NASA projects are well-known to be expensive because they, similar to military procurement in the US, are handled like inofficial job creation projects involving as many states as possible.
[−]TacticalCoder · 2026-11-15 Sun 02:18 UTC ·
link
> If that were true, then why doesn't the US have a single high speed train?
Because building/modifying rails crossing many states and cities means having to deal with a unending shitload of bureaucrats at single every level of power.
While sending something up straight in the air and then into space means all those little bureaucrats from all those cities/communities/states do not get a say in the matter.
> If that were true, then why doesn't the US have a single high speed train?
Planes are faster, cheaper, safer, require much less infrastructure, go anywhere to anywhere, scale elastically with demand, and have less emissions per passenger mile than high-speed trains.
> and have less emissions per passenger mile than high-speed trains
The optimal high speed train is about two orders of magnitude more efficient than the equivalent flight on a passenger mile basis. Might look a little different for crossing oceans or thin routes where it's really not worth building a thousand miles of rail to replace a flight a day, but lack of demand between nearby cities or is not why the US doesn't have any high speed rail network...
[−]s1artibartfast · 2026-11-15 Sun 05:39 UTC ·
link
Efficient in what terms? Dollars per mile? In the usa?
The US rail network was created by private industry, including both freight and passenger. This included many of the fastest passenger trainsets at the time, like the Zephyr. In 1971 the US nationalized passenger rail into Amtrak, and Amtrak stopped using off-the-shelf trainsets and managed the development of their own, similar to NASA developing the Space Launch System (the space shuttle) for their use. At that point, the US started falling behind on rail speed records.
In short, the US had stuff that works, including the fastest trains, when run by private industry, but after nationalizing the industry into a non-profit governmental organization, they stopped producing stuff that works.
In 1970 other countries already had state-owned 130+ mph train networks (Germany, for example). Again, the idea that those things can only be done right through private companies is ideology, not fact-based.
Not intending to derail (hah) the thread, but with trains there just are more examples to look for vs. rockets, while still being broadly comparable. In about 6-7 years we can look to China for a comparable, public project with Long March 9 and 9b.
US rail network was created by the US government giving gigantic land grants and loans to railroads and used their army and influence to make sure nobody could stop them.
> they stopped producing stuff that works.
No they reluctantly nationalized a broken industry well past its profitable time and then refused to invest anything into it.
Any development needs investment. If you nationalize and don't invest, of course you will not produce anything new.
While when you nationalize and you do, you might produce something new, just like in private industry.
The technology behind high speed trains literally came from British Rail technology development center and was then used by Japan. Both done by government.
I don't understand why on HN the debate between public and private has so cliche and on a level of 3rd graders. Its obviously way more complex than that in the real world.
+1 "I don't understand why on HN the debate between public and private has so cliche and on a level of 3rd graders. Its obviously way more complex than that in the real world."
This was a topic I wrote papers about in middle school and HS.
If that were true, then why doesn't the US have a single high speed train?
NASA projects are well-known to be expensive because they, similar to military procurement in the US, are handled like inofficial job creation projects involving as many states as possible.
Because building/modifying rails crossing many states and cities means having to deal with a unending shitload of bureaucrats at single every level of power.
While sending something up straight in the air and then into space means all those little bureaucrats from all those cities/communities/states do not get a say in the matter.
In most of the world the landowners have far less rights.
The decade(s) long environmental reviews of every piece of land used for the project is also a huge force agains any such projects.
If the legalities were handled, I expect US train builders would excel at building high speed trains. In reality, we'll never know.
Planes are faster, cheaper, safer, require much less infrastructure, go anywhere to anywhere, scale elastically with demand, and have less emissions per passenger mile than high-speed trains.
The optimal high speed train is about two orders of magnitude more efficient than the equivalent flight on a passenger mile basis. Might look a little different for crossing oceans or thin routes where it's really not worth building a thousand miles of rail to replace a flight a day, but lack of demand between nearby cities or is not why the US doesn't have any high speed rail network...
This claim is not even in the right ballpark.
Planes are faster only when ignoring the time at/to/from the airport.
In short, the US had stuff that works, including the fastest trains, when run by private industry, but after nationalizing the industry into a non-profit governmental organization, they stopped producing stuff that works.
Not intending to derail (hah) the thread, but with trains there just are more examples to look for vs. rockets, while still being broadly comparable. In about 6-7 years we can look to China for a comparable, public project with Long March 9 and 9b.
> they stopped producing stuff that works.
No they reluctantly nationalized a broken industry well past its profitable time and then refused to invest anything into it.
Any development needs investment. If you nationalize and don't invest, of course you will not produce anything new.
While when you nationalize and you do, you might produce something new, just like in private industry.
The technology behind high speed trains literally came from British Rail technology development center and was then used by Japan. Both done by government.
I don't understand why on HN the debate between public and private has so cliche and on a level of 3rd graders. Its obviously way more complex than that in the real world.
This was a topic I wrote papers about in middle school and HS.