MikeT

One can only dream of the day that this was possible.

hawksbill

Well that's certainly interesting. I travel between Boston and New York a lot, and the current service pretty much makes Amtrak a non-option for me. The regular trains are considerably slower than driving, and the Acela Express is no faster than driving, but its price compares to flying.

A viable East Coast rail option would be a great thing, although I do sort of wonder if it's worth $117 billion dollars and a thirty-year wait while they build it.

Aduchamp1

Currently the commuter line Metro North owns the track from NYC to New Heaven and does not allow AMTRAK to move above a certain speed. Would they lay new track in the existing right of way?

Fra_Diavolo

Too late to do me any good. Pity it wasn't built twenty years ago, more or less in line with the rest of the world.

hawksbill

I found Amtrak's detailed plan: http://www.scribd.com/doc/38345039/A...heast-Corridor

Section 3.0 mentions where the new New York-to-Boston tracks might go:

"This 'Analyzed Alignment,' as shown in the figure, parallels the existing NEC [Northeast Corridor] from New York to just north of New Rochelle, then follows a combination of highway, rail and overland routes through Connecticut and Massachusetts, before rejoining the existing NEC south of Rt. 128 in Massachusetts and paralleling it into Boston. A route substantially paralleling the existing NEC between Boston and New York was not chosen for initial analytical purposes because of a combination of capacity constraints on Metro- North’s New Haven Line between New Haven and New Rochelle.Curvature restrictions and design requirements to meet environmental concerns on the Amtrak-owned “Shore Line” from the Massachusetts state line to New Haven would make it extremely difficult to meet the travel time targets of approximately one hour and 30 minute service."

amyb

I have never once taken the Acela BOS-NY or back and gotten there anything close to on time. Usually it's later than the normal speed train (and now I just fly to LGA because even with a cab it's faster than being late!). So I take this proposal with a grain of salt.

Aduchamp1

Thank you Hawksbill.

If you live in Manhattan and are either going to downtown DC or Boston the train is convenient. The train is much more pleasurable way to travel than flying.

I have not taken the NYC-DC Shuttle from LGA to National in a few years, are you still not allowed to stand or go to the bathroom once the doors of the aircraft are closed?

BigRuss

2040? Why that's just 76 years after the Japanese shinkansen, the main initial line of which (Tokyo-Osaka, 340 miles or about 100 miles longer than DC-NYC or NYC-Boston) was built in five years.

Aduchamp1

The United States has a car culture as opposed to the Europeans. I do not know if the Japanese have a car culture.

Americans do not think in terms of the train unless you are a daily commuter and live in a metropolitan area with a train tradition.

The United States had an extensive rail system before their were autos and once autos became affordable, it changed the culture, history, economy, sex habits, and where people resided.

This is akin to people lamenting the closing of a restuarant where they haven't gone in 30 years and wondering what happened.

MikeT

are you still not allowed to stand or go to the bathroom once the doors of the aircraft are closed?

That's a very very old rule.

hawksbill

I haven't taken the shuttle in at least a year either. My last one was a U.S. Airways shuttle. I don't remember a specific rule about not letting people stand up after boarding. However, the actual flight time is only about 40 minutes, and because you can't move around during taxiing, takeoff, or landing, I guess that pretty much means that you're stuck sitting down for the whole trip anyway. I agree that the train is a lot more pleasant.

For me, with all the extra time it takes to get to and from South Station (or Back Bay Station) and Penn Station, and wait for the train, my door-to-door time is at least as fast just driving (except perhaps during peak rush hour times). Plus, going by car, I can leave whenever I'm ready, and I can take large items, or pack stuff haphazardly into shopping bags rather than suitcases, which is nice. The downside is that I can't work or relax while I drive, and I have to pay for gas and parking. And of course, by driving, I'm polluting the environment and supporting terrorists who are trying to kill me.

It has always seemed unfortunate to me that, even in the most densely populated areas of the U.S., we haven't been able to make rail travel the easily superior option that it is in parts of Japan or Europe.

gail

I went to college in Providence, RI 30 years ago and took Amtrak often to New York to go home. They were talking about high-speed northeast corridor train service back then - I am still waiting.

Nikki

Not holding my breath.

andrews98682

By 2040? That would put us, what, a full century behind Japan and Europe?

travelbuff

I can think of a whole lot of better ideas to spend $117 BILLION dollars on, so people can save a few minutes in travel,,,,,,,,,?

Dukey1

The United States ALSO has the American Automobile Association as well as lobbying groups which represent the AIRLINES and both of those have consistently resisted many many attempts to plough more money into rail transportation options, high-speed or otherwise.

Yes, the beloved AAA..they change your tires, jump your battery, and consistently OPPOSE public transport efforts whenever possible.