He must've been writing before the Acela Express made its debut. But Boston and New York are close enough that I'd argue true high-speed rail isn't all that much needed.
Which is good, because there's no way in hell our government-supported passenger rail monopoly could ever implement it. That's half the problem right there - nobody can compete with Amtrak because Amtrak can undercut everyone, so Amtrak's service can suck as much as it likes.
(Which is not all that much, in the Northeast Corridor! What we have there may not be super fast, but it is reliable and comfortable. Everywhere else in the US seems a different story.)
Acela Express is barely faster than the existing trains, because most of the track isn't high-speed capable. And I certainly wouldn't mind 1 hour service between northeastern cities... NYC to Boston is a bit shorter than the TGV main high speed trunk in France (Paris-Lyon, 300 km vs ~450), and DC to Boston is longer (630 km). Currently, Acela takes 3.5 hours NYC-BOS. TGV best case (300 km/hr) would shave a lot of time off there.
Amtrak is government supported to a very limited extent compared to road traffic. If rail maintenance was paid for by the government, like all road maintenance is, it would be substantially more competitive cost-wise with other forms of travel.
They're not terrible because they're sitting on a monopoly, they're terrible because their budget has been kept at barely life-support levels by congress.
I've never had any issues with Amtrak's service. People forget that they're second-class citizens to freight on the track, so they're usually not to blame for being late and they're held back by the infrastructure, which is designed, owned, and maintained by freight companies.
I know it's accepted in the HN community to be down on government monopolies, but a quick glance at the privatization disaster of British Rail should be enough to convince even die-hard free market advocates that there's a place for Amtrak. It may not be efficient per se, but a democratically-accountable monopoly is certainly the most efficient model I've seen for passenger rail.
Say what you will about BR privatization, but this[0] goes from London to Manchester in 2 hours (takes about 3 by road if you really push it on the M6 toll and M40). They also serve (overpriced) beer.
The British government still owns the rails and prioritizes passenger service, though, unlike the US. NR bought it back after Railtrack folded, if memory serves.
If Amtrak owned the rails and leased to freight, instead of the other way round, I imagine it'd have a similar level of service. As things stand, there's zero incentive for the track owners (freight companies) to update the lines for speeds higher than they can cheaply ship at.
FWIW, I live in Croatia and even we have tilting trains these days. It's downright embarrassing that the US is so far behind.
The basic problem with the US rail network is it's optimized for freight, especially outside the Eastern corridor. Who owns and maintains the network is probably less important than where it goes and the fact so many lines are single-track. If we wanted to put in a decent passenger rail network we're almost starting from scratch even using conventional trains.
It's "all of the above". Private, public, and quasi-governmental (public-private partnerships). The "public" side can be at any level: national, prefectural, municipal, etc.
I believe it's half-and-half. I think they fully privatized the JR regions that earn decent profits, but the government subsidizes/operates the less profitable regions. I honestly don't know much about it, though.
Acela is pathetic. For Boston to New York, it saves 30 minutes over the regular train, reducing the 4 hour journey to 3:30. I'd say that's close enough to casually describe as "not any faster," especially when many other civilized countries' trains cover that sort of distance in an hour or so.
Which is good, because there's no way in hell our government-supported passenger rail monopoly could ever implement it. That's half the problem right there - nobody can compete with Amtrak because Amtrak can undercut everyone, so Amtrak's service can suck as much as it likes.
(Which is not all that much, in the Northeast Corridor! What we have there may not be super fast, but it is reliable and comfortable. Everywhere else in the US seems a different story.)