After Sunday 's commuter rail derailment next to the Hudson River in New York killed four passengers and injured scores more , observers are once again ready to assail the backwards state of the nation 's rail infrastructure . How could Americans let something like this happen in the 21st century in one of the nation 's greatest global cities ? The train was going a shocking 82 mph when it should have been traveling at 70 mph , slowing to 30 mph into the curve at Spuyten Duyvil station in the Bronx . The engineer of the train said he was `` in a daze '' at the time of the accident . Do n't we have technologies that can prevent trains from gathering and maintaining such speed at dangerous curves -- or technologies that can automatically deploy the brakes if they do ? If these technologies exist , and we know they do , are we simply not investing properly in our trains and tracks and signaling systems ? Surely there will be an outcry about the sad state of New York 's Metropolitan Transportation Authority funding , and the funding of the nation 's rails and infrastructure networks as a whole . Much of the developed world has invested heavily in high-speed rail and yet the United States , with a massive market for long-distance intercity rail travel , has not even scratched its surface . Our governors have balked at support for high-speed links , channeling federal subsidies instead to more politically popular state projects like roads , highways and bridges -- leaving high-speed intercity travel a dream and our regional rail systems an uneven patchwork of service . But the lessons of the Spuyten Duyvil derailment wo n't be known for some time , and they likely are n't so simple as more investment . For a start , the technology that could have potentially prevented the fatal derailment -- positive train control , or PTC , is already being deployed on freight lines across the country . Mandated by the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 , tens of thousands of track side devices are being connected to rail signals and switches to communicate wirelessly with retrofitted locomotives up and down the country 's major rail thoroughfares . Engineers operating trains with PTC systems will be told and shown in real time exactly where and how much they need to slow down , based on the curvature of the track , on congestion and on the train 's speed , weight and length . Failure to respond to the computer data will result in automatic deployment of the train 's brakes . Widow says train crash victim was 'pure goodness '' Its nice to think that entirely new systems incorporating new and faster cars would make derailments disappear into the history books , but they probably wo n't . Although the absence of high-speed technologies in this country means that rail travel is not an attractive option for certain long-distance journeys and contributes to higher levels of pollution and road congestion in places , it does n't really make rail travel any less safe . Indeed , countries with high-speed rail have roughly the same rate of derailments and crashes as we do -- often with far more serious consequences . Take China for example . Within five years of announcing its extraordinary $ 250 billion investment in 7,500 miles of high-speed rail , the country opened its first high-speed line . The same year , 2008 , a horrific train crash on the Beijing to Quindao bullet train line claimed 70 lives . Three years later , in 2011 , a signal failure along one of the new high-speed rail routes out of the capital claimed another 40 lives and injured 192 -- leading to public outrage and questions about the integrity of the nation 's entire high-speed rail program . Europe 's investments in its intercity networks are typically older and more established than those of China -- but they are not immune to rail tragedy either . Despite extensive and popular programs of high-speed rail , both Spain and France have had their share of train accidents . Video footage of a 2013 derailment in northwest Spain , just outside Santiago de Compostela , displays an eerie resemblance to Sunday 's Hudson Line accident . A passenger train rounded a bend at roughly twice the speed it should have , coming off the rails adjacent to a station and killing 78 people . The problem was apparently not mechanical -- it was human error . Does any of this mean we should be complacent when an incident as tragic as Sunday 's happens ? Of course not . We should leave no stone unturned in identifying the cause of the crash . If it is ultimately attributed to an equipment failure , we should and will likely see a renewed call for greater capital investment on the part of the MTA -- and perhaps even legislative action to support it . But we should n't be naïve enough to think that more investment in our rail network in the form of newer or faster equipment necessarily makes the network safer . That investment must be smarter for it to really save lives . Although unions across the transportation world typically balk at its introduction , increased automation is often the answer to transportation safety problems . The train control systems being deployed are likely to reduce the risks of accidents like that witnessed on Sunday dramatically -- much the same way automation in planes and cars has reduced pilot errors in the sky and made road driving safer . But even the most sophisticated vehicle control systems in the world will not protect us completely from human error -- for that we have only ourselves to blame .
Kate Ascher : After deadly train derailment in U.S. , people lament state of New York rail system . Ascher : Technology that might have prevented accident is being deployed on freight lines . Ascher : Horrific rail crashes in France , China , Spain show high-tech is n't safer . More investment wo n't make trains completely safe , she says . It wo n't stop human error .