[0_____0]

Even in places where it makes all the sense in the world, we don't have quality rail. It's more expensive and slower to take the train than to drive from Boston to NYC, and that's a perfect length of trip for rail. The whole North East Corridor seems to run ancient track, and the "High Speed" Acela service doesn't even count as such in locales with modern HS services.

[Polizeiposaune]

If it was just the matter of replacing track in the existing right-of-way they would have done that. Unfortunately, much of the NEC right-of-way between NY and Boston -- particularly in Connecticut -- is too curvy. Bulldozing a new, straighter right of way across CT is not politicaly feasible -- it would most likely require massive amounts of property seizure by eminent domain that nobody has the stomach for. If there were real breakthroughs in low cost tunnel boring machines there might be a way but it's not going to happen at or above ground.

[0_____0]

The old rich folks in CT who don't want the NEC alignment don't care if it's in a tunnel (folks still came out to oppose the new alignment near Old Lyme even when the proposal changed to allow for a tunnel so they didn't have to see or hear the thing).

If there was true HS service on the NEC between Boston and NYC you'd easily get a far larger share of the BOS-NYC pax trips made. Estimates are about 15MM trips/yr with rail being about a third of that. Is getting an extra 5 million car trips off the road worth inconveniencing some of the most affluent communities in the US?

BOS NYC, driven is about 2 micromorts, the drive is about 140kg CO2. So, napkin math, if half the people traveling by car and plane switched to train, you save 5 lives per year and 500,000 tons of CO2 emission. That's a (shittily calculated, admittedly) estimate of the cost of inaction.