Amtrak doesn't own the rails, so the delays are not their fault (freight gets priority), but I would hesitate to take Amtrak because of asset forfeiture.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/05/how-the...

Amtrak owns the rails on this segment (Boston to DC).

There's also MARC and Washington Metro service from that station. Is that also as unreliable as Amtrak? Why would you just choose to take Amtrak to DC when you have two better options there?

The delays there are poor but train 111 departs from NY so has a long time to get delayed en route to that station. It's not a classic example of a commuter train.

> There's also MARC and Washington Metro service from that station. Is that also as unreliable as Amtrak? Why would you just choose to take Amtrak to DC when you have two better options there?

Because my tax dollars are paying for it (Amtrak receives about $1.4 billion in subsidies each year) and I expect it to run as scheduled. Being an inter-city service is no excuse--Germany, Japan, etc., manage to run timely intercity train service.

Metro is a disaster. According to WMATA, the 26-minute scheduled trip from NCR to Federal Triangle takes me on average 37 minutes (about 50% over schedule). That's for a service that starts at NCR.

MARC is the least bad option (only about 5 minutes late on average) but it's typically standing-room-only at NCR.

Why would bus drivers "clock out". And why is competition necessary? You're running a bus, not building cars or selling clothes. Public transport doesn't have major room to inovate, so there's not really a need, and more companies confuses what should be a simple situation. One route, one bus service.

The government here runs the tube (TfL) and it's fairly good, a lot better than the privately run stuff elsewhere in the country. I come from Yorkshire, where we have "Northern Rail" which is usually the butt of most jokes about our country's infrastructure...

> Why would bus drivers "clock out".

Because they're lazy and irresponsible. But its impossible to fire them because of the public unions.

> And why is competition necessary?

Because at least a private company can go out of business and be replaced by something else.

> The government here runs the tube (TfL)

TfL is run in a much more "corporate" manner than public transit in the U.S. For example, it covers almost 100% of its operating costs, while U.S. transit systems are massive black holes for tax money.

I think one of the things that Europeans don't realize is that its not like Americans are choosing between private companies and European-style public services. No public service in the U.S. is run like what I see when I travel to Germany or Japan. The NYC subway and DC subway were historically the two best, and both are currently in a state of meltdown (despite being very well funded systems in overwhelmingly Democratic areas).

Americans choose between the private sector (which leaves a lot of people without service, no doubt), and a rapacious corrupt public sector that spends several times as much money to offer shittier service than what you have in Europe. (E.g. despite running almost identical systems, the NYC Subway spends twice as much per passenger trip as the Tube).

> I think one of the things that Europeans don't realize is that its not like Americans are choosing between private companies and European-style public services.

Estonia is in Europe.

Wouldn't the sensible repercussion in that case be the bus driver gets fired for terrible performance?

Yes, and that is exactly what would happen. Bus drivers in the EU as a rule are reasonably responsible people. They also have to have special licenses to be allowed to transport passengers.

Public company would be owned by local government. Or private company contract would make local government responsible for keeping it on a short leash. Great topic to fuck up your opponents in local elections.