2150 is more realistic, look at CA high speed rail timeline, there is no way this thing get built by 2050 even if approved now and even less likely for it to cost 50B, maybe 200B minimum
@@qjtvaddict This isn’t a NIMBY issue. It can’t be done engineering-wise and economy-wise. It would be the scale of the Chunnel, but with 1/30th of the traffic. It won’t even bring in enough revenue for its upkeep, right along construction.
@@afcgeo882 "You can't justify a bridge by the number of people swimming across a river" If we build this service, people would absolutely use it. We justified building the Interstate Highway System with a lot less. And on your "It won't even bring in enough revenue for its upkeep" point, it is a public service. It shouldn't have to break even or be profitable. We don't require highways to break even or be profitable (they are far from it, actually) so why should we hold high-speed rail to such a higher standard?
New York -> Boston around 330km = 4:20h with the train Stuttgart (Germany) -> Paris (France) around 600km = 3:20h with the train Shanghai -> Beijing around 1200km = 4:30h with the train The US truly lives in the Past when it comes to transportations.
Who cares? USA has 100 million luxury SUVs and millons of 700 mph passenger jets for transportation. For too long we have wasted trillions of dollars defending ungrateful Europe from killing itself.
@@ninyaninjabrifsanovichthes45 Axebul was being kind: Madrid>Barcelona 506km = 2:30h by AVE Madrid>Sevilla 390km = 2:21h by AVE Barcelona>Cordoba 712km = 4:25h by AVE What should really embarrass Americans is that many US train services are slower now than they were in the 50s and 60s - if they still exist, of course.
this would be faster then the plane when you include the time to get in/out(on/off) the airport/ train station(airplane/train). All that time waiting/walking in the plane/airport. Free carry on luggage. More space with better seats and bathrooms and food and alcohol. Zero risk of weather delays/cancellations. This high speed train ride could and even should cost more then a flight because it is better and faster then a plane flight
@@lukethompson5558Check Amtraks fares between NYC and Boston. Compared to flying in most cases you will beat the air fare cost. Airlines charge very high fares on shorter haul flights. Amtrak also offers many bargain fares at off peak times and on non holiday weekends especially on their higher speed Acela Express trains.
Will be done when I'm dead after going over budget by 5 billion and still needing constant maintenance with delays. This country used to build amazing things in a timely manner. The whole system has let corruption and greed take over.
the reason why it takes 4 hours is because of Connecticut. The rails aren't that up to date and it's generally slow moving through Connecticut due to speed restrictions.
@@AbimaelLopez-hz3qqcorrect America made that choice in the 60-70s era Car lobby and auto industry, combined witth the idea of the american dream of owning a car. You cant own trains, but you can own your vehicle. And plus rail isn’t profitable, but so arent roads, and eisenhower got the IHS in (i love it ingenius, but still). Combine this with decades of fear mongering that anything publicly funded will lead to socialism and communism, you get a society that is allergic to basic shit that other first world countries have in TWO SOCIETIES (Western Europe and East Asia). But in America, all this PLUS all the NIMBYs and infinite court cases slow the process and raise the costs. And now we have nerdy climate “activists” against this. We cant ever prosper.
the only difference between hsr and non hsr train tracks is how sharp it turns and the grade it travels on. it also needs to have tracks welded together. all tracks have to be replaced eventually. the existing line between boston and nyc can be easily upgraded to serve hsr trains for a fraction of the cost and done in a fraction of the time. it might take longer if done piecemeal. this should be the focus and the entire line from dc to nyc should be upgraded as well
In Portugal, there is this funny discussion about our High Speed Line project. 330ish kilometers, 190-200 miles give or take, connecting the two main cities, Lisbon and Porto. We already have a line that serves the two cities, and the fastest train does the trip is 2h30 post modernization. The high speed line will reduce that to 1h45 (same stops) and 1h20 minutes (non stop), but many say it's stupid to just build a new line instead of upgrading the new one. Problem is, the current one runs at capacity, with a mixture of multiple different trains, be it freight, suburban rail and intercity services. More capacity and speed would require wider curves and quad tracking the entire stretch of track. But due to how old the line is, doing this would lead to mass destruction of homes, and half of the cost could easily be just property acquesitions, and that would most certaintly cause outrage and protest. It's possble that the same reality is faced by the North East Corridor, if so, it makes sense of why new infrastructure is required. Sorry for the ramble, but had to put this in context.
You’re clueless. First off, the NE Corridor is already high speed. Second, that’s not all that separates things. You need separation between tracks, no grade crossings and you need to block people from access to the tracks. The NE corridor between NYC and Boston isn’t entirely owned by Amtrak and a large chunk of it is nowhere near straight and runs with mixed traffic, so trains including the high-speed Acela must travel at low speeds in those sections. In fact, there are just two short sections where it can travel up to its top operational speed. There is no upgrade that you can do to get it significantly better.
@@nyxw problem is this solution is not creating an entirely new line. its forcing people to go to long island where the rich are. the long island leg should be added later. so the new line would start from new haven
@@oneday123456 I am not saying it's the most ideal route. I don't know how many people live alongside the current NEC that would need to be displaced to be able to build High Speed Curves and smooth gradients. From a technical standpoint, it's very hard to do a tunnel that long, especially under a body of water. The Chunnel did it, but the rock present in the Chunnel wasn't bad to dig through, I am not certain about that region in Long Island. From a monetary standpoint it would also be very expensive for not so high of a benefit. But compared to demoloshing and displacing thousands upon thousands of families, it might make sense. Then again, I don't know the region enough, so I won't say anything for sure.
Some of the comments show a perspective that would associate freight rail service with "hauling materials and/or goods" and associate passenger rail with "hauling ass."
not feasible to build over/under the sound, there has to be a better alternative to speed up service. also, any existing tracks on Long Island are at full capacity due to the LIRR.
It would be tunnels under the sound. It would be like our version of the Channel Tunnel. Would be amazing if this project happens. This would eliminate the Metro North New Haven Line getting in the way of the NEC. Also having to go through those grade crossings along the Shore Line section.
@@railfan282 it would cost billions of dollars that could better be spend on other things, and only buy about an hour at the end of the day. the Chunnel connects the continent of Europe to the U.K., a far cry from building a tunnel that saves about 60 miles worth of trip
You will only get prices like that if Brightline or some other privately-owned agency is selected as the service operator. Otherwise, tickets should cost about the same as Amtrak's Acela service charges today at most.
What if New England rebooted its entire rail network? Might there be new high-speed rail lines such as the following: * Burlington, VT-Providence, RI Line via Montpelier, VT, Keene, NH, Fitchburg, MA, and Worcester, MA * Buffalo, NY-Boston, MA Line A via Syracuse, NY, Albany, NY, Springfield, MA, and Worcester, MA * Buffalo, NY-Boston, MA Line B via Syracuse, NY, Albany, NY, `Greenfield, MA, and Fitchburg, MA * Northwards extension of Northeast Corridor into Bar Harbor, ME via Logan Airport, Portsmouth, NH, and Portland, ME thus moving NE Corridor’s northern terminus from South Station to Logan Airport
You don't want Brightline operating the service if you want cheap ticket prices that aren't comparable to those of airline tickets. Brightline is privately-owned, meaning that any fares they would be able to charge for tickets are significantly higher than anything Amtrak would charge for its tickets. If Amtrak operates this new service they are proposing (which in my opinion, isn't even necesary), then that means cheaper fares for everybody.
@@hydroworldoutlook5769 Honestly, Amtrak should absolutely invest more in high speed rail, but they need to make improving service on existing tracks the top priority. There needs to be more than 1 train per day on the DFW, Austin, San Antonio line, and it needs to not be consistently 1-2 hours late. If they can get these trains running decently on-time at least 4-5 times a day (with the eventual goal of hourly services, especially between Austin and San Antonio), then I would consider it a major improvement. I cite that example because it is the one in my own backyard, but there are also several other services such as the Chicago, Milwaukee, Minneapolis line that would benefit massively from increased services. There really only seems to be a major focus on the northeast, which is fine because a lot of people do indeed live there, but there are many Americans living in decently dense cities elsewhere that would benefit from better rail services. Finally, there needs to be a modernization of railway infrastructure across the board in the US. This is an issue beyond just Amtrak's jurisdiction, and it goes to the state and federal level. I'm a train nerd, and as a consequence I've ridden dozens of different train services across multiple continents, and I can honestly say the trains in the US are so embarrassingly bad compared to pretty much anywhere else. This is probably one of the hardest things to accomplish since it requires coordination between politicians and civil engineers and the courage to invest large amounts of money into new infrastructure, but I do believe the downstream benefits will be worth the upfront cost.
Most infrastructure that Brightline uses aside from the stations themselves is state-funded and/or pre-existing. There’s nothing companies fear more than having to build massive amounts of expensive infrastructure with no guarantee it’ll pay off That being said I think an arrangement where the government builds the tracks and then rents them out to operators would be great, and is actually a fairly well proven model elsewhere in the world. In fact, that’s how our airports operate
Well, there's going to be several years of feasibility and environmental assessments first before anyone starts talking about construction plans. And even then, if they're smart (and depending how long it ends up being), this new system will be built in phases, so we won't see the full system working together until the tail end of it all. If we can wait until 2060, maybe it has a chance. In the meantime, though, there are plenty of other high-speed rail projects we can enchant ourselves with that are much further along, like California High-Speed Rail on the Pacific coast and Brightline West in the Mojave Desert. Brightline East is also planning construction on extensions of their system down in Florida.
While it would provide a fast ride the cost to build it is really high. Having to tunnel under Long Island Sound is one reason the cost looks so high. Instead of worrying about doing the trip in two hours Amtrak should continue to invest in higher speed trains that can run on existing tracks or tracks with minimal upgrades. With all the highway congestion even today’s four hour trip time is not that bad. Also remember if you go to true high speed trains the cost to run and maintain the route will go up. So if too much costs go it will will cause some people to not ride who would ride a slower service that is dependable and comfortable. The comfort and avoiding both highway traffic and airport hassles should be good enough for most riders. One other point making improving the existing route would most likely finished a lot sooner than building a new line.
why is this even being proposed when full electrification plus track + signal upgrades to the NEC could allow the Acela to make the same trip in less time? absurd
The tunnel doesn't stand a chance. It's being propose to make the real choices seem less expensive. Connecting existing rights of way with new tracks on new rights of way could happen but one section at a time. Many of us will never live to see it.
Only two hours by train. But that's only from the time the train leaves the station in NYC to when the train stops in Boston. Doesn't count lead time for security - and how could the Federal government not classify this as a high-visibility high security risk requiring passengers to go through security at least half an hour before departure? So count on 45 minutes to an hour from the time you step into the railroad station until departure making it a three plus hour trip. How does that compare to a commuter plane?
Amtrak doesn’t do all that security stuff like what they do at airports. You just show up with your ticket and wait for your train to arrive and then the conductor comes around to scan tickets. It’s really not that bad. I took Amtrak from Philly-NYC and back last December and it was awesome. Plus, this new proposal includes consistent high speeds up to over 200 mph.
You have never taken a train I guess. I only takes 5-10 minutes to fully board a train (that's assuming a full load). And that if from the time you arrive at the station. Trains also don't have to taxi out of the gate like a airplane. You don't have to drive 10-20 miles from the airport to the your destination city. Train destinations are located in city centers or major train transit hubs. Studies have shown that for trips under 400 miles, HSR (with a cruising speed of 150-200 mph) is cost and time competitive with short haul air travel. Often the major lobbyists against HSR are from the airline industry. As for being a high security risk, trains are not aircraft. There is no way for a passenger to physically gain access to the locomotive when the train is in motion. Security procedures are a bit more relaxed.
airports have tight security because you can hijack the plane and use it to destroy any building you want you cannot hijack a train and use it to destroy any building you want
Well, then you have to expect higher fares. Either Amtrak runs the system and we get cheap fares or some private agency runs it and the ticket costs are the same as airline tickets, negating the cost-saving benefit. In the latter case, that probably also means higher taxes local residents have to pay to support the operation of the system because it is more expensive. Your choice. Either way, we can't have it both ways.
We're not thinking comprehensively or all the way through. It doesn't really take too long now to get between these two cities. Is this where the marginal improvement is? How easy is it to get from Logan or LaGuardia airports, to rail centers? Not easy. Both cities have big rail transit problems. And part of the reason for rail is to connect intermediate points in a way air can't.
Well, there's a tradeoff. More stops means less time competitiveness but more accessiblity to the rail system for communities between its termini. Less stops means more time competitiveness but less accessibility because the train skips over areas where people who wish to ride the train may live in, which means ridership tends to be lower (unless there is some other connecting mode of transportation that serves those intermediate communities) and benefits of the rail system are negated because people have to drive further anyways to get to the nearest train station.
Took the FrecciaRossa from Mikan to Rome, 300miles in 2 hr 50, some parts of the trip it was below 80mph some over 155mph. Now they have the FrecciaRossa 1000, that can travel at 255mph but commercially limited to 225mph or 360km/h
@@hydroworldoutlook5769 There are a dozen and a half countries that have 300+ km/h high speed rail: Belgium, China, France, Germany, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Morocco, the Netherlands, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Spain, Taiwan, Turkey, and the UK. The US has plugged ears and closed eyes since the 60s.
To me, this is number 3. 1 was California High-Speed Rail, 2 was Brightline West, and now we get this. Brightline East down in Florida is already running and growing strong.
Speaking of the Long Island Sound tunnel they might as well have dedicated motorrail trains on them operating it like the channel tunnel SBB Gotthardbasis Tunnel ÖBB Brennerbasistunnel. The Swiss an Austrian based tunnels carry trucks over them on dedicated trains if they were to do it here the terminal for the shuttle is in Nassau County on the other side of the Long Island Sound which is part of the Atlantic Ocean terminals for it can be Stonington Connecticut or Warwick Rhode Island. If they were to have that service you don't have to drive Providence Rhode Island to Bridgeport or closer New London.
Wouldnt it be more cost effective to use existing rail road beds and replacing the rails rather than constructing a tunnel? Admittedly im not an expert, but if a route from point A to point B already exists, why build a new route?
Current track layout is old and unsuitable for high speed rail. Amtrak did try to get high speed rail going along it with tilting trains but there's only so much you can do until you just need to go and make from scratch high speed rail without all the twists and turns of the old one.
Oh, yes, there will be plenty of delays. But it's better to wait longer and end up with a reliable, well-built system than rush and end up with something half-baked and crappy. After all, like they always say, good things come to those who wait.
And destroy the environment in the process? It's important to remember that one of the chief reasons behind instituting new rail systems and services is to take cars off the road and (potentially) planes out of the air by encouraging people to invest in taking more sustainable, energy-efficient transportation.
@@freshpotatolikesaviation Then you would get express service. That is faster than flying because you don't need to wait in line for security at a train station like you do at an airport. Or am I not understanding your point?
@@hydroworldoutlook5769 you got a nice point, no doubt, but in my opinion the train takes almost as much time as driving, making it not really worth it. and sometimes tickets cost more than the actually driving.
@@hydroworldoutlook5769 that takes an aveerage of 4 hours right now, this would half the commute time! 50 billion is also nothing, as much as highway projects nowadays and the money is literally just going towards jobs and boosting the economy
@@saladman8745 Right now it does, but keep in mind that current Acela rolling stock entered service in the early 2000s and is aging fast. When Amtrak replaces these for their Avelia Liberty rolling stock in the next few years, the maximum operating speed of Acela trains will improve, at least outside of congested New York City. As for high-speed rail within New York City, that depends on Metro-North, I guess.
Title says "What was once a pipe dream could soon become a reality." If by "soon" Fox 5 is saying 2125, it will be long after we all are dead. Seeing how high-speed rail has gone everywhere in the country, with massive delays and cost overruns (leading contender - California) there is absolutely no chance this happens "soon." Also, with the path being where it is proposed, few people live along the route so it would only work for those who live in Boston and want to go the NY and back. The profitability of such limited use is questionable as unless they stop all flights and buses between the two cities, you are not talking about a very big market for this very expensive construction which will only go up in cost for a lot more than the proposed $50 billion.
The US has the most developed US Hiway and airline systems in the world. High speed rail will only compete with what we already have, and fail miserably. Use history and your common sense to end throwing your grandchildren's money into a pit.
Why did the reporter do his standup from outside the oldest portion of Penn Station, as opposed to doing it from inside the new Moynihan Train Hall? It would have looked so much better on TV.
I’d love this. I’m in DC, and it’d be so great to be able to head up to Boston for a weekend, especially with night trains. With only a 5 hour ride from here in DC, I’d happily hop a train at 6pm Friday, have dinner and watch a movie on the way up, and check into my hotel at 11. And of course, Bostonians could head down here, or even further. With a sleeper train and a little extra rail, a Bostonian in January could go to sleep Friday night in frigid and snowy Massachusetts and wake up Saturday morning rolling into Virginia Beach with sunshine and temps in the mid 50s.
You could accomplish such a trip today with currently existing Amtrak Silver services, though you would have to transfer to Northeast Regional for that last leg from NYC to Boston since Silver Star and Meteor trains presently terminate at New York Penn Station.
HSR between New York and Boston that makes sense. The population density is high. The public transportation is good on both metros. However , building HSR between 2 cities is waste of money. Need to build additional stations in between. Please improve the public transportation in those cities. Rochester used to be booming city. General Rail Signal was a company that built rail globally until it was sold to a French company. Not sure how many booming cities in between, and they should be connected. I just hate when HSR supporters only care direct connections n ignore the middle. That is not how HSR works, but most HSR supporters who keep referring Japan, France, etc have no idea of HSR. In the future, this should extend to Phily, Baltimore, DC with some stations in between. Of course, public transportation has to be improved outside those three metro areas. Public transportation in Suburb of DC has to improve.have not been in suburbs of Philadelphia n Baltimore. Can't comment
First of all, this makes absolutely zero sense. There is already a high-speed rail line that runs from NYC to Boston and it's called the Amtrak Acela. The Northeast Corridor is a fully-electrified, already established, well-known rail line that can already support Amtrak trains (and commuter trains) running at speeds exceeding 90 mph. It makes exactly zero sense to build new infrastructure or introduce new services when existing services already achieve the same goals. Just like there is no need for a maglev between DC and Baltimore, there is definitely no need for additional high-speed rail lines from NYC to Boston. My suggestion is, if you want to improve rail infrastructure in the Northeast United States, consider paying more attention to electrifying lines that cannot currently support high-speed rail, such as the Northeast Regional's Springfield branch or Long Island Rail Road's Montauk branch line.
Can you explain how electrification of a rail line makes high-speed rail possible? Faster acceleration? It's not as if commuters are standing up on the Acela, as on a subway line, due to demand. Couldn't they add more railcars onto Acela, if needed?
It's quite simple, actually. If you electrify the rail line (upgrading the tracks to allow higher train speeds) then you can automatically have high-speed rail provided that you coordinate additional train traffic with whoever owns the tracks. Since Amtrak itself owns the Northeast Corridor, Amtrak trains take priority on the right of way and can therefore choose to operate as fast as the tracks will allow. Regional and commuter agencies who choose to run their trains on the same tracks have to follow the rules that Amtrak outlines and give priority to Amtrak trains. The commuter trains run on Amtrak terms. Similarly, high-speed trains running on electrified tracks must operate on the track owner's terms, unless the agency overseeing operations of those trains owns the right to the tracks, in which case they may operate as fast as the tracks will safely allow. If the tracks are electrified, like I said, higher operating speeds can be achieved because no fuel has to be burned and trains are running solely off the power grid.
The thing is though New York to Boston currently is not really all that high speed compared to New York to DC. New York to Boston is the reason the whole NEC averages 65 mph because of slow, old infrastructure in Connecticut. Metro North owns those tracks too, not Amtrak. The previous proposed bypass failed, this is our only option.
And yes, to answer your second question, you could just add additional railcars to Acela trains provided that the locomotives pulling the trains have enough power to move those railcars. Like diesel-electric trains, fully-electric trains like the Acela Express can only be as long as their locomotives are able to move.
@@railfan282 Still sounds like Metro-North should pass on control of the tracks to Amtrak if their refusal to upgrade the tracks is impeding the speed and reliability of Amtrak service. Ideally, I would think that Amtrak would even be the legal position to buy or demand control of the railroad between NYC and Boston.
if they just upgraded the northeast corridor, you would be able to have this type of time/speed on the acela. But for some reason, the NIMBYS love to block high speed rail along this section.
@@thatoneguy42145they can’t really upgrade the northeast corridor to be high speed rail. Even if they upgraded all the tracks to modern standards, there are too many curves on the Connecticut portion of the tracks to make HSR feasible
If you want a 30 minute journey, get the Chinese to do the job. They will deliver, within budget and in time. I am saying this from Indonesia. They built our first high-speed rail, and it started operation last Sept. Ovetcame all the challenges of the covid years . Now my trip from our capital city Jakarta to hometown in Bandung takes a smooth 45 mins. It used to take 3.5 hours by road. See what I mean.
A flight from NYC to Boston is 1H 25M not to mention getting to the airport an hour before departure, taxing before takeoff and landing, and the time to travel to the airport. HSR gets you from city center to city center and you only have to arrive 10 minutes. So it will be a lot faster.
We should hire China to build this line. They would have it open before 2028 and highly profitable running at 250 mph shortly after it pulls out of the station. Environmentalists would rather have cars and trucks belching smoke up and down Interstate 95, stupid car accidents, tire debris and trash across the land, and planes burning fuel in the atmosphere. Get this complete by 2028. If it were an issue of national security the greatest minds would come together and build a world class high speed rail line between Washington DC and Boston.
China is not going to build a line that only benefits Americans unless the Chinese workers live in America. The best we can do is pay to use their technology to build the rail system.
I frequently take Amtrak from Albany to nyc…. I can’t even get the internet on the crickety old dirty 2nd world trains….the people that run this nation nation are an embarrassment …. 37 trillion in debt… for what??????!
Our country is focused more on what is practical to implement and what options are cheapest and most effective rather than worried about what other countries have that we don't.
Given that the Northeast is America’s economic engine, and is the only part of America that pays more in taxes than it gets from the feds, the people proposing this very much *are* the ones paying for it. In fact, they’re also the ones who pay for the infrastructure in places like Appalachia, the Midwest, and Wyoming too.
Well, consider this. States like Massachusetts, Connecticut, NY, NJ actually pay more into the Federal government's coffers than they get back in funded projects. I would say the North East is owed a bit of money and should stop subsidizing poor states which tend to get a disproportionate amount of funding.
I thought they been wanting for 100 years to build a bridge or or tunnel from Long Island to CT. & now this tunnel idea for a train. Which doesn’t help most of the people who maybe just want to drive their family from from Long Island to Connecticut easily, & not necessarily up to Boston.
Amtrak has been talking about this crap for decades. don't hold your breath. You have to consider that the NE is highly congested. There is no open path to build a line.
@@afcgeo882How else would it get to Ronkonkoma? Long Island doesn’t have much free space. I would assume they’re just going to put up catenary and then run trains on the LIRR mainline.
![⭐ฮิตในTikTok!! ( มะมะมะหมูเด้ง MooDeng ) Ver. แดนซ์ ReMix BY [ ดีเจกิต รีมิกซ์ ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4noyAoMa7bQ/mqdefault.jpg)
You know you’re in the US when environmental advocates are arguing against a train.
😂😂😂😂
It's the same in Europe too, so called greens arguing against high speed rail because it involves going through nature. It's an insane mindset.
Greens arguing always against everything, basically. Want to go back to the stone age😅
F Nature 😂
@@Zoemaestra HS2?
Starts considering in 2028 so I guess it would be done in 2050
Elon Musk will probably have built his weird Elon Musk tunnels there before this thing gets finished
Damn, don’t think I will see it 😂
2150 is more realistic, look at CA high speed rail timeline, there is no way this thing get built by 2050 even if approved now and even less likely for it to cost 50B, maybe 200B minimum
You mean 2075
@@Bobby_T_Elon's little fairy tale world
Great idea! Can’t wait to never hear about this again!
And never have it implemented. Instead “cost overruns” and “we’ve decided to build 6 new highways instead”
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
They've been saying these for decades. Politicians, NIMBYs, car, oil, & air companies have ruined every bit of effort to try and make this possible.
@@HAL-bo5lr You know what else ruins it? Reality.
Ban NIMBYS
@@afcgeo882laughing in Spain your country is just a 💩🕳
@@qjtvaddict This isn’t a NIMBY issue. It can’t be done engineering-wise and economy-wise. It would be the scale of the Chunnel, but with 1/30th of the traffic. It won’t even bring in enough revenue for its upkeep, right along construction.
@@afcgeo882 "You can't justify a bridge by the number of people swimming across a river" If we build this service, people would absolutely use it. We justified building the Interstate Highway System with a lot less.
And on your "It won't even bring in enough revenue for its upkeep" point, it is a public service. It shouldn't have to break even or be profitable. We don't require highways to break even or be profitable (they are far from it, actually) so why should we hold high-speed rail to such a higher standard?
New York -> Boston around 330km = 4:20h with the train
Stuttgart (Germany) -> Paris (France) around 600km = 3:20h with the train
Shanghai -> Beijing around 1200km = 4:30h with the train
The US truly lives in the Past when it comes to transportations.
In NY-BOS defense, it's mostly bogged down by the Connecticut section of the NEC.
Who cares? USA has 100 million luxury SUVs and millons of 700 mph passenger jets for transportation. For too long we have wasted trillions of dollars defending ungrateful Europe from killing itself.
@@ninyaninjabrifsanovichthes45 Axebul was being kind:
Madrid>Barcelona 506km = 2:30h by AVE
Madrid>Sevilla 390km = 2:21h by AVE
Barcelona>Cordoba 712km = 4:25h by AVE
What should really embarrass Americans is that many US train services are slower now than they were in the 50s and 60s - if they still exist, of course.
it'll be ready by 2124 and cost at least 1 trillion.
Flying cars will come first.
Lmao true
In the US no project can be proposed without an environmentalist complaining
Or at least an Environmental Impact analysis to sort out ACTUAL concerns (as opposed to whatever the fake environmentalists like JSO have to say)
So many great uses! Hopefully it doesn't cost the price of a flight
That is the perfect space for a train. Too far to drive, too close/expensive to fly!
this would be faster then the plane when you include the time to get in/out(on/off) the airport/ train station(airplane/train). All that time waiting/walking in the plane/airport. Free carry on luggage. More space with better seats and bathrooms and food and alcohol. Zero risk of weather delays/cancellations. This high speed train ride could and even should cost more then a flight because it is better and faster then a plane flight
@@StreamSched touché. Guess that's worth it
It will cost much more than a flight. The current 4h train ride already costs substantially more than flights
@@lukethompson5558Check Amtraks fares between NYC and Boston. Compared to flying in most cases you will beat the air fare cost. Airlines charge very high fares on shorter haul flights. Amtrak also offers many bargain fares at off peak times and on non holiday weekends especially on their higher speed Acela Express trains.
Don't hold your breath😂😂😂
an environmentalist who cares about the well being of the Long Island sound probably shouldn’t live anywhere near nyc
Will be done when I'm dead after going over budget by 5 billion and still needing constant maintenance with delays. This country used to build amazing things in a timely manner. The whole system has let corruption and greed take over.
NIMBYs, car culture, infinite courts, activists
Left and right forces stopping progress in this country
Sad
On God
In other words: "You won't ever see this be real. But thanks for the billions!"
Heard about this since the 80's.😒😒😒😆
the reason why it takes 4 hours is because of Connecticut. The rails aren't that up to date and it's generally slow moving through Connecticut due to speed restrictions.
Then imminent domain the freight lines and the whole nimby state.
Over/under on what year this is completed?
We need to rebuild the pre existing rail lines that are defunct before we even talk about high speed rail.
Why?
Welcome to 1965!
It wouldn't work because lirr main line always has switch problems.
THIS IS AMTRAK
This is America. America is not successful at rail infrastructure projects anymore. Too many NIMBYs here.
Car and oil companies ruined it it wasn’t nimbys
@@AbimaelLopez-hz3qq Hmmm, I think it was all three.
@@AbimaelLopez-hz3qqcorrect
America made that choice in the 60-70s era
Car lobby and auto industry, combined witth the idea of the american dream of owning a car.
You cant own trains, but you can own your vehicle.
And plus rail isn’t profitable, but so arent roads, and eisenhower got the IHS in (i love it ingenius, but still).
Combine this with decades of fear mongering that anything publicly funded will lead to socialism and communism, you get a society that is allergic to basic shit that other first world countries have in TWO SOCIETIES (Western Europe and East Asia). But in America, all this PLUS all the NIMBYs and infinite court cases slow the process and raise the costs.
And now we have nerdy climate “activists” against this.
We cant ever prosper.
the only difference between hsr and non hsr train tracks is how sharp it turns and the grade it travels on. it also needs to have tracks welded together. all tracks have to be replaced eventually. the existing line between boston and nyc can be easily upgraded to serve hsr trains for a fraction of the cost and done in a fraction of the time. it might take longer if done piecemeal. this should be the focus and the entire line from dc to nyc should be upgraded as well
That’s what we’ve been doing the train still take 4 hours, this project also does that just more
In Portugal, there is this funny discussion about our High Speed Line project. 330ish kilometers, 190-200 miles give or take, connecting the two main cities, Lisbon and Porto. We already have a line that serves the two cities, and the fastest train does the trip is 2h30 post modernization.
The high speed line will reduce that to 1h45 (same stops) and 1h20 minutes (non stop), but many say it's stupid to just build a new line instead of upgrading the new one. Problem is, the current one runs at capacity, with a mixture of multiple different trains, be it freight, suburban rail and intercity services. More capacity and speed would require wider curves and quad tracking the entire stretch of track. But due to how old the line is, doing this would lead to mass destruction of homes, and half of the cost could easily be just property acquesitions, and that would most certaintly cause outrage and protest.
It's possble that the same reality is faced by the North East Corridor, if so, it makes sense of why new infrastructure is required. Sorry for the ramble, but had to put this in context.
You’re clueless.
First off, the NE Corridor is already high speed.
Second, that’s not all that separates things. You need separation between tracks, no grade crossings and you need to block people from access to the tracks.
The NE corridor between NYC and Boston isn’t entirely owned by Amtrak and a large chunk of it is nowhere near straight and runs with mixed traffic, so trains including the high-speed Acela must travel at low speeds in those sections. In fact, there are just two short sections where it can travel up to its top operational speed. There is no upgrade that you can do to get it significantly better.
@@nyxw problem is this solution is not creating an entirely new line. its forcing people to go to long island where the rich are.
the long island leg should be added later. so the new line would start from new haven
@@oneday123456 I am not saying it's the most ideal route. I don't know how many people live alongside the current NEC that would need to be displaced to be able to build High Speed Curves and smooth gradients.
From a technical standpoint, it's very hard to do a tunnel that long, especially under a body of water. The Chunnel did it, but the rock present in the Chunnel wasn't bad to dig through, I am not certain about that region in Long Island.
From a monetary standpoint it would also be very expensive for not so high of a benefit.
But compared to demoloshing and displacing thousands upon thousands of families, it might make sense. Then again, I don't know the region enough, so I won't say anything for sure.
Some of the comments show a perspective that would associate freight rail service with "hauling materials and/or goods" and associate passenger rail with "hauling ass."
Why not just upgrade the NEC?
It's almost like this part of the Northeast Corridor system... Plus there are upgrades beginning to take shape in the NEC.
not feasible to build over/under the sound, there has to be a better alternative to speed up service. also, any existing tracks on Long Island are at full capacity due to the LIRR.
It would be tunnels under the sound. It would be like our version of the Channel Tunnel. Would be amazing if this project happens. This would eliminate the Metro North New Haven Line getting in the way of the NEC. Also having to go through those grade crossings along the Shore Line section.
@@railfan282 it would cost billions of dollars that could better be spend on other things, and only buy about an hour at the end of the day. the Chunnel connects the continent of Europe to the U.K., a far cry from building a tunnel that saves about 60 miles worth of trip
Even if they price around the same as flight tickets, this will be a game changer for sure. No need to go to the airport with long security line.
You will only get prices like that if Brightline or some other privately-owned agency is selected as the service operator. Otherwise, tickets should cost about the same as Amtrak's Acela service charges today at most.
Some of these comments reminded me about the guy who used to take a train from Wilmington, DE, to his job in DC.
I don't understand the environmentalist argument against digging UNDER Long Island Sound.
They’re worried about the “eco system” 😒
I'm sure sports fans in New York & Boston would like this.
What if New England rebooted its entire rail network? Might there be new high-speed rail lines such as the following:
* Burlington, VT-Providence, RI Line via Montpelier, VT, Keene, NH, Fitchburg, MA, and Worcester, MA
* Buffalo, NY-Boston, MA Line A via Syracuse, NY, Albany, NY, Springfield, MA, and Worcester, MA
* Buffalo, NY-Boston, MA Line B via Syracuse, NY, Albany, NY, `Greenfield, MA, and Fitchburg, MA
* Northwards extension of Northeast Corridor into Bar Harbor, ME via Logan Airport, Portsmouth, NH, and Portland, ME thus moving NE Corridor’s northern terminus from South Station to Logan Airport
I was with it until they said Amtrak. Let Brightline run it.
You don't want Brightline operating the service if you want cheap ticket prices that aren't comparable to those of airline tickets. Brightline is privately-owned, meaning that any fares they would be able to charge for tickets are significantly higher than anything Amtrak would charge for its tickets. If Amtrak operates this new service they are proposing (which in my opinion, isn't even necesary), then that means cheaper fares for everybody.
@@hydroworldoutlook5769 Honestly, Amtrak should absolutely invest more in high speed rail, but they need to make improving service on existing tracks the top priority. There needs to be more than 1 train per day on the DFW, Austin, San Antonio line, and it needs to not be consistently 1-2 hours late. If they can get these trains running decently on-time at least 4-5 times a day (with the eventual goal of hourly services, especially between Austin and San Antonio), then I would consider it a major improvement.
I cite that example because it is the one in my own backyard, but there are also several other services such as the Chicago, Milwaukee, Minneapolis line that would benefit massively from increased services. There really only seems to be a major focus on the northeast, which is fine because a lot of people do indeed live there, but there are many Americans living in decently dense cities elsewhere that would benefit from better rail services.
Finally, there needs to be a modernization of railway infrastructure across the board in the US. This is an issue beyond just Amtrak's jurisdiction, and it goes to the state and federal level. I'm a train nerd, and as a consequence I've ridden dozens of different train services across multiple continents, and I can honestly say the trains in the US are so embarrassingly bad compared to pretty much anywhere else. This is probably one of the hardest things to accomplish since it requires coordination between politicians and civil engineers and the courage to invest large amounts of money into new infrastructure, but I do believe the downstream benefits will be worth the upfront cost.
Yeah, private train ownership has worked perfectly in Britain!! *cough cough
You cooked 🗣🗣🔥🔥
Unfortunately you burnt the food 🗣🗣🔥🔥
Most infrastructure that Brightline uses aside from the stations themselves is state-funded and/or pre-existing. There’s nothing companies fear more than having to build massive amounts of expensive infrastructure with no guarantee it’ll pay off
That being said I think an arrangement where the government builds the tracks and then rents them out to operators would be great, and is actually a fairly well proven model elsewhere in the world. In fact, that’s how our airports operate
Please start this now
Well, there's going to be several years of feasibility and environmental assessments first before anyone starts talking about construction plans. And even then, if they're smart (and depending how long it ends up being), this new system will be built in phases, so we won't see the full system working together until the tail end of it all. If we can wait until 2060, maybe it has a chance. In the meantime, though, there are plenty of other high-speed rail projects we can enchant ourselves with that are much further along, like California High-Speed Rail on the Pacific coast and Brightline West in the Mojave Desert. Brightline East is also planning construction on extensions of their system down in Florida.
While it would provide a fast ride the cost to build it is really high. Having to tunnel under Long Island Sound is one reason the cost looks so high. Instead of worrying about doing the trip in two hours Amtrak should continue to invest in higher speed trains that can run on existing tracks or tracks with minimal upgrades. With all the highway congestion even today’s four hour trip time is not that bad. Also remember if you go to true high speed trains the cost to run and maintain the route will go up. So if too much costs go it will will cause some people to not ride who would ride a slower service that is dependable and comfortable. The comfort and avoiding both highway traffic and airport hassles should be good enough for most riders. One other point making improving the existing route would most likely finished a lot sooner than building a new line.
why is this even being proposed when full electrification plus track + signal upgrades to the NEC could allow the Acela to make the same trip in less time? absurd
The tunnel doesn't stand a chance. It's being propose to make the real choices seem less expensive. Connecting existing rights of way with new tracks on new rights of way could happen but one section at a time. Many of us will never live to see it.
Yes, yes , YES , YES!!!
Only two hours by train. But that's only from the time the train leaves the station in NYC to when the train stops in Boston. Doesn't count lead time for security - and how could the Federal government not classify this as a high-visibility high security risk requiring passengers to go through security at least half an hour before departure? So count on 45 minutes to an hour from the time you step into the railroad station until departure making it a three plus hour trip. How does that compare to a commuter plane?
Amtrak doesn’t do all that security stuff like what they do at airports. You just show up with your ticket and wait for your train to arrive and then the conductor comes around to scan tickets. It’s really not that bad. I took Amtrak from Philly-NYC and back last December and it was awesome. Plus, this new proposal includes consistent high speeds up to over 200 mph.
Security only takes 5 minutes for amtrak. This isn't an airport.
It will absolutely take longer than flying if you add on a bunch of made up stuff for no reason 🙄meanwhile in the real world, it's faster.
You have never taken a train I guess. I only takes 5-10 minutes to fully board a train (that's assuming a full load). And that if from the time you arrive at the station. Trains also don't have to taxi out of the gate like a airplane. You don't have to drive 10-20 miles from the airport to the your destination city. Train destinations are located in city centers or major train transit hubs. Studies have shown that for trips under 400 miles, HSR (with a cruising speed of 150-200 mph) is cost and time competitive with short haul air travel. Often the major lobbyists against HSR are from the airline industry.
As for being a high security risk, trains are not aircraft. There is no way for a passenger to physically gain access to the locomotive when the train is in motion. Security procedures are a bit more relaxed.
airports have tight security because you can hijack the plane and use it to destroy any building you want
you cannot hijack a train and use it to destroy any building you want
As long as Amtrak is NOWHERE near this new train. The Amtrak Office of the Attorney General knows that Amtrak is the WRONG AGENCY to build anything.
Well, then you have to expect higher fares. Either Amtrak runs the system and we get cheap fares or some private agency runs it and the ticket costs are the same as airline tickets, negating the cost-saving benefit. In the latter case, that probably also means higher taxes local residents have to pay to support the operation of the system because it is more expensive. Your choice. Either way, we can't have it both ways.
We're not thinking comprehensively or all the way through. It doesn't really take too long now to get between these two cities. Is this where the marginal improvement is? How easy is it to get from Logan or LaGuardia airports, to rail centers? Not easy. Both cities have big rail transit problems. And part of the reason for rail is to connect intermediate points in a way air can't.
We have this already, but it stops 18 times. That's what they never think about
Well, there's a tradeoff. More stops means less time competitiveness but more accessiblity to the rail system for communities between its termini. Less stops means more time competitiveness but less accessibility because the train skips over areas where people who wish to ride the train may live in, which means ridership tends to be lower (unless there is some other connecting mode of transportation that serves those intermediate communities) and benefits of the rail system are negated because people have to drive further anyways to get to the nearest train station.
No because LIRR uses those tracks keep dreaming there’s no reason for people to be traveling from Boston to NYC on a daily basis anyway keep dreaming
Please Make this a reality. We need High Speed Rail!
always the environmentalist stopping progress.
Yeah, who gives a shit about the Earth, what a bunch of assholes
Took the FrecciaRossa from Mikan to Rome, 300miles in 2 hr 50, some parts of the trip it was below 80mph some over 155mph. Now they have the FrecciaRossa 1000, that can travel at 255mph but commercially limited to 225mph or 360km/h
Right, but that's not in the US.
There's a lesson for American decision-makers in that
@@hydroworldoutlook5769 but it could have been, just Amtrak got into the HST too late. Brightline has faster trains than amtrak
@@hydroworldoutlook5769 There are a dozen and a half countries that have 300+ km/h high speed rail: Belgium, China, France, Germany, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Morocco, the Netherlands, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Spain, Taiwan, Turkey, and the UK. The US has plugged ears and closed eyes since the 60s.
Proposed high speed rail number 3? Or is it 4 times you failed already?
To me, this is number 3. 1 was California High-Speed Rail, 2 was Brightline West, and now we get this. Brightline East down in Florida is already running and growing strong.
I doubt it will happen, just look how long its taking them to operate the new Avelia Liberty
Speaking of the Long Island Sound tunnel they might as well have dedicated motorrail trains on them operating it like the channel tunnel SBB Gotthardbasis Tunnel ÖBB Brennerbasistunnel. The Swiss an Austrian based tunnels carry trucks over them on dedicated trains if they were to do it here the terminal for the shuttle is in Nassau County on the other side of the Long Island Sound which is part of the Atlantic Ocean terminals for it can be Stonington Connecticut or Warwick Rhode Island. If they were to have that service you don't have to drive Providence Rhode Island to Bridgeport or closer New London.
Dream on. Come back when you have real plans actioned.
Yeah right😅 with all these jacked up/curvy tracks the NEC has 😂
Wouldnt it be more cost effective to use existing rail road beds and replacing the rails rather than constructing a tunnel? Admittedly im not an expert, but if a route from point A to point B already exists, why build a new route?
Existing route in New York and Connecticut is way too curvy
Exactly, exactly, exactly. Right on point!
Current track layout is old and unsuitable for high speed rail. Amtrak did try to get high speed rail going along it with tilting trains but there's only so much you can do until you just need to go and make from scratch high speed rail without all the twists and turns of the old one.
Okay, which one of you did the Sir Mix-a-lot joke?
That. Will. Never. Happen.
In US
Any environment advocacy group that is outright and unconditionally against high speed rail is not serious and should not be listened to.
Why does it need to go via Long Island
Wait, they want to dig UNDER the Sound?! That inherently seems way more involved than buying right-of-way with a gentle curve or two.
I’ll believe it when I see it. 🙄
Why just change the regulated speed limit in Connecticut so the Acela can to go it’s operating speed?
Would be lovely
Not a chance this decade
We used to have a high speed bus called Fung Wah until the pesky federal highway authority shut it down
U.S.: Tax dollars dumped into a train that never comes.
We don't know that yet. Nothing's official until construction begins.
@@hydroworldoutlook5769maybe you lower the prices then, XD
Yes please
Even if it does happen, the ticket will be twice as expensive
Yeah that's won't happen but great idea
Y u want to go to Boston for?
Tunnel under Long Island …. lol
I foresee a delay lol
Oh, yes, there will be plenty of delays. But it's better to wait longer and end up with a reliable, well-built system than rush and end up with something half-baked and crappy. After all, like they always say, good things come to those who wait.
Let's get some actual high speed rail
I would rather just get a $50 flight to boston
And destroy the environment in the process? It's important to remember that one of the chief reasons behind instituting new rail systems and services is to take cars off the road and (potentially) planes out of the air by encouraging people to invest in taking more sustainable, energy-efficient transportation.
@@hydroworldoutlook5769 but it’s way more time consuming, the distance between Boston is too short to put stops in between
@@freshpotatolikesaviation Then you would get express service. That is faster than flying because you don't need to wait in line for security at a train station like you do at an airport. Or am I not understanding your point?
@@hydroworldoutlook5769 you got a nice point, no doubt, but in my opinion the train takes almost as much time as driving, making it not really worth it. and sometimes tickets cost more than the actually driving.
I know trains. This is totally unattainable.
Any other country would make this happen
That is bad and horrible idea for Amtrak people would make it horrible.
as long as it stops in long island so people can live there and commute to NYC.
$50B !!! Not gonna happen.
Actually it’s The Line In Neom, it cost like $1 Trillion Dollars, it’s more higher than any other projects that it could cost.
Agreed. And we already have high speed rail from NYC to Boston. Just look up Amtrak's Acela, and boom, problem solved.
@@hydroworldoutlook5769 that takes an aveerage of 4 hours right now, this would half the commute time! 50 billion is also nothing, as much as highway projects nowadays and the money is literally just going towards jobs and boosting the economy
@@saladman8745 Right now it does, but keep in mind that current Acela rolling stock entered service in the early 2000s and is aging fast. When Amtrak replaces these for their Avelia Liberty rolling stock in the next few years, the maximum operating speed of Acela trains will improve, at least outside of congested New York City. As for high-speed rail within New York City, that depends on Metro-North, I guess.
Yea like this is ever gonna happen😒
Title says "What was once a pipe dream could soon become a reality." If by "soon" Fox 5 is saying 2125, it will be long after we all are dead. Seeing how high-speed rail has gone everywhere in the country, with massive delays and cost overruns (leading contender - California) there is absolutely no chance this happens "soon." Also, with the path being where it is proposed, few people live along the route so it would only work for those who live in Boston and want to go the NY and back. The profitability of such limited use is questionable as unless they stop all flights and buses between the two cities, you are not talking about a very big market for this very expensive construction which will only go up in cost for a lot more than the proposed $50 billion.
Keep Dreaming...
$50 billion.. of taxpayer money.
The US has the most developed US Hiway and airline systems in the world. High speed rail will only compete with what we already have, and fail miserably. Use history and your common sense to end throwing your grandchildren's money into a pit.
Why did the reporter do his standup from outside the oldest portion of Penn Station, as opposed to doing it from inside the new Moynihan Train Hall? It would have looked so much better on TV.
F the wildlife, just build it.
Впервые зашёл,увидел что в США тоже неплохие поезда и говорят развивают новые направления
A lot of promises and it took how long to get the gateway project off the ground. Prob won’t hear about this again for a decade
They already high speed rail they don’t have tracks
Not impressed till it’s under 1hr
I’d love this. I’m in DC, and it’d be so great to be able to head up to Boston for a weekend, especially with night trains. With only a 5 hour ride from here in DC, I’d happily hop a train at 6pm Friday, have dinner and watch a movie on the way up, and check into my hotel at 11. And of course, Bostonians could head down here, or even further. With a sleeper train and a little extra rail, a Bostonian in January could go to sleep Friday night in frigid and snowy Massachusetts and wake up Saturday morning rolling into Virginia Beach with sunshine and temps in the mid 50s.
You could accomplish such a trip today with currently existing Amtrak Silver services, though you would have to transfer to Northeast Regional for that last leg from NYC to Boston since Silver Star and Meteor trains presently terminate at New York Penn Station.
HSR between New York and Boston that makes sense. The population density is high. The public transportation is good on both metros. However , building HSR between 2 cities is waste of money. Need to build additional stations in between. Please improve the public transportation in those cities.
Rochester used to be booming city. General Rail Signal was a company that built rail globally until it was sold to a French company.
Not sure how many booming cities in between, and they should be connected. I just hate when HSR supporters only care direct connections n ignore the middle. That is not how HSR works, but most HSR supporters who keep referring Japan, France, etc have no idea of HSR.
In the future, this should extend to Phily, Baltimore, DC with some stations in between. Of course, public transportation has to be improved outside those three metro areas. Public transportation in Suburb of DC has to improve.have not been in suburbs of Philadelphia n Baltimore. Can't comment
First of all, this makes absolutely zero sense. There is already a high-speed rail line that runs from NYC to Boston and it's called the Amtrak Acela. The Northeast Corridor is a fully-electrified, already established, well-known rail line that can already support Amtrak trains (and commuter trains) running at speeds exceeding 90 mph. It makes exactly zero sense to build new infrastructure or introduce new services when existing services already achieve the same goals. Just like there is no need for a maglev between DC and Baltimore, there is definitely no need for additional high-speed rail lines from NYC to Boston. My suggestion is, if you want to improve rail infrastructure in the Northeast United States, consider paying more attention to electrifying lines that cannot currently support high-speed rail, such as the Northeast Regional's Springfield branch or Long Island Rail Road's Montauk branch line.
Can you explain how electrification of a rail line makes high-speed rail possible? Faster acceleration?
It's not as if commuters are standing up on the Acela, as on a subway line, due to demand. Couldn't they add more railcars onto Acela, if needed?
It's quite simple, actually. If you electrify the rail line (upgrading the tracks to allow higher train speeds) then you can automatically have high-speed rail provided that you coordinate additional train traffic with whoever owns the tracks. Since Amtrak itself owns the Northeast Corridor, Amtrak trains take priority on the right of way and can therefore choose to operate as fast as the tracks will allow. Regional and commuter agencies who choose to run their trains on the same tracks have to follow the rules that Amtrak outlines and give priority to Amtrak trains. The commuter trains run on Amtrak terms. Similarly, high-speed trains running on electrified tracks must operate on the track owner's terms, unless the agency overseeing operations of those trains owns the right to the tracks, in which case they may operate as fast as the tracks will safely allow. If the tracks are electrified, like I said, higher operating speeds can be achieved because no fuel has to be burned and trains are running solely off the power grid.
The thing is though New York to Boston currently is not really all that high speed compared to New York to DC. New York to Boston is the reason the whole NEC averages 65 mph because of slow, old infrastructure in Connecticut. Metro North owns those tracks too, not Amtrak. The previous proposed bypass failed, this is our only option.
And yes, to answer your second question, you could just add additional railcars to Acela trains provided that the locomotives pulling the trains have enough power to move those railcars. Like diesel-electric trains, fully-electric trains like the Acela Express can only be as long as their locomotives are able to move.
@@railfan282 Still sounds like Metro-North should pass on control of the tracks to Amtrak if their refusal to upgrade the tracks is impeding the speed and reliability of Amtrak service. Ideally, I would think that Amtrak would even be the legal position to buy or demand control of the railroad between NYC and Boston.
You can't use the old New Haven corridor.
It would need a separate line.
Environmental concerns are always pure political crap.
We already have one, it’s called the Acela…
In China this travel will take you only 2 hrs😂
Literally the Acela
Even the Acela takes just under 4 hours. It only hits top speeds between Boston and Providence
if they just upgraded the northeast corridor, you would be able to have this type of time/speed on the acela. But for some reason, the NIMBYS love to block high speed rail along this section.
@@thatoneguy42145they can’t really upgrade the northeast corridor to be high speed rail. Even if they upgraded all the tracks to modern standards, there are too many curves on the Connecticut portion of the tracks to make HSR feasible
If republicans were always in charge, we would have had this years ago
2 hours? That’s still slow. If they can do under 30 mins that would be impressive.
1 hour and 40 minutes. That's a huge improvement from 4 hours.
If you want a 30 minute journey, get the Chinese to do the job. They will deliver, within budget and in time. I am saying this from Indonesia. They built our first high-speed rail, and it started operation last Sept. Ovetcame all the challenges of the covid years . Now my trip from our capital city Jakarta to hometown in Bandung takes a smooth 45 mins. It used to take 3.5 hours by road. See what I mean.
Or 9 minutes!
You gotta crawl before you can run
A flight from NYC to Boston is 1H 25M not to mention getting to the airport an hour before departure, taxing before takeoff and landing, and the time to travel to the airport. HSR gets you from city center to city center and you only have to arrive 10 minutes. So it will be a lot faster.
So the environmentalists are OK with more airplanes and more trucks that emit all that fuel gas? LMAO
We should hire China to build this line. They would have it open before 2028 and highly profitable running at 250 mph shortly after it pulls out of the station. Environmentalists would rather have cars and trucks belching smoke up and down Interstate 95, stupid car accidents, tire debris and trash across the land, and planes burning fuel in the atmosphere. Get this complete by 2028. If it were an issue of national security the greatest minds would come together and build a world class high speed rail line between Washington DC and Boston.
China is not going to build a line that only benefits Americans unless the Chinese workers live in America. The best we can do is pay to use their technology to build the rail system.
I frequently take Amtrak from Albany to nyc…. I can’t even get the internet on the crickety old dirty 2nd world trains….the people that run this nation nation are an embarrassment …. 37 trillion in debt… for what??????!
how are we such a big country with high taxes and cant have highspeed rail there something totally worng there
Our country is focused more on what is practical to implement and what options are cheapest and most effective rather than worried about what other countries have that we don't.
We don't have high taxes
Notice how the people proposing this are not the people paying for it. Fifty billion eh? Lotsa luck with that.
Given that the Northeast is America’s economic engine, and is the only part of America that pays more in taxes than it gets from the feds, the people proposing this very much *are* the ones paying for it. In fact, they’re also the ones who pay for the infrastructure in places like Appalachia, the Midwest, and Wyoming too.
Well, consider this. States like Massachusetts, Connecticut, NY, NJ actually pay more into the Federal government's coffers than they get back in funded projects. I would say the North East is owed a bit of money and should stop subsidizing poor states which tend to get a disproportionate amount of funding.
I thought they been wanting for 100 years to build a bridge or or tunnel from Long Island to CT. & now this tunnel idea for a train. Which doesn’t help most of the people who maybe just want to drive their family from from Long Island to Connecticut easily, & not necessarily up to Boston.
There will probably be a stop in ct and Long Island on each side. If you want to drive you can just take the ferry like before
Amtrak has been talking about this crap for decades. don't hold your breath. You have to consider that the NE is highly congested. There is no open path to build a line.
And if Trump gets reelected, we'll see the abolishment of Amtrak. Vote public transport, folks.
NYC can't even run the subways efficiently and dependably 🤣🤣🤣
This would be Amtrak.
They could if they changed mayor
The LIRR has a pretty tight schedule so I wonder how frequently this train would run.
@@LIRRFAN426This wouldn’t run on LIRR tracks. It can’t.
@@afcgeo882How else would it get to Ronkonkoma? Long Island doesn’t have much free space. I would assume they’re just going to put up catenary and then run trains on the LIRR mainline.
NYC is a shithole anyways. last time i visited I almost got jumped just minding my business in times square.