For most of modern history, oceans have acted as natural barriers—dividing nations, slowing trade, and shaping how cities grow. But beneath the waves, a quiet transportation revolution is underway. Infrastructure once limited by geography is now being reimagined through undersea railways.

Undersea rail tunnels—like the Channel Tunnel and Japan’s Seikan Tunnel—proved decades ago that trains could reliably travel beneath the ocean floor. Today, new projects are expanding that vision even further.

Around the world, engineers and governments are investing in undersea railways—tunnels that allow high-speed trains to travel beneath oceans and seas. Once considered science fiction, these projects are now operational, under construction, or actively being planned.

Undersea Rail Is Already a Reality

Japan’s Seikan Tunnel and the Channel Tunnel between the United Kingdom and France proved decades ago that undersea railways are not only possible, but reliable. These tunnels carry passengers and freight beneath the sea every day, reshaping regional connectivity.

Undersea railways are cleaner than short-haul flights, more resilient than bridges, and capable of lasting more than a century. As climate pressures and congestion increase, rail beneath the sea is emerging as a practical solution for future mobility.

What’s Being Built Right Now

China is currently constructing the Jintang Undersea Railway Tunnel as part of the Ningbo–Zhoushan high-speed rail line, while Europe’s Fehmarnbelt Fixed Link will soon connect Denmark and Germany beneath the Baltic Sea. These projects highlight how transportation and technology are converging to solve modern mobility challenges.

The Mega-Projects Still on the Drawing Board

Looking ahead, proposals such as the Helsinki–Tallinn Tunnel and the long-studied Strait of Gibraltar rail tunnel could reshape global affairs by linking regions—and even continents—once separated by water.

Why Undersea Rail Matters

The future of transportation may not rise above the ocean—but run quietly beneath it.

Please leave this field empty

Unlock fun facts & lost history—get The Knowledge in your inbox!

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

Advertisement

Dodger Gondola Project Faces Major Setbacks as L.A. Leaders and Residents Push Back

For years, the Los Angeles Aerial Rapid Transit (LA ART) — better known as the Dodger Gondola Project — has been pitched as a bold, futuristic connection between Union Station and Dodger Stadium, whisking riders above traffic in a six-minute aerial trip. Supporters call it L.A.’s chance to build a cleaner, faster, iconic transit link. But as 2025 winds toward its close, the project faces more turbulence than ever.

A Quick Refresher: What the Gondola Would Be

The proposed gondola line would travel about 1.2 miles, with stations at Union Station, a stop near L.A. State Historic Park, and Dodger Stadium. Private backers connected to former Dodgers owner Frank McCourt have promoted it as a zero-emission way to move more than 5,000 passengers per hour on game days — and potentially daily for tourists, residents, and park visitors.

Why the Dream Is Stalling

In November 2025, the Los Angeles City Council voted 12–1 to formally oppose the project, urging Metro to abandon it. While the vote isn’t legally binding, it signaled a major political shift. Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez, who introduced the resolution, cited environmental and community concerns — especially the impact on Chinatown, Solano Canyon, and L.A. State Historic Park.

A California Court of Appeals ruling earlier in the year also struck down Metro’s original environmental review, forcing a supplemental EIR that reopened debates about tree removal, tower placement, noise, and neighborhood impacts. The city has additionally ordered a comprehensive traffic study, pausing key permits until it’s complete.

Communities Speak Out

Local opposition has been strong and well-organized. Residents warn the gondola would remove mature trees, alter the character of the State Historic Park, and intrude over communities that have already shouldered decades of infrastructure burdens. Advocacy groups say the project favors private interests over public need, pointing to the lack of a clear long-term funding or maintenance plan.

Not Dead — But Deeply Uncertain

Despite mounting challenges, the gondola isn’t entirely grounded. Metro is still reviewing public comments on the supplemental environmental report, and state lawmakers are debating legislation that could streamline some project requirements. Whether those efforts succeed — or whether political pressure ultimately stalls the gondola indefinitely — remains to be seen.

Advertisement

The Big Picture

The Dodger Gondola Project sits at the intersection of transit innovation, environmental justice, and the future of Los Angeles mobility. For supporters, it represents a chance to modernize travel to one of the nation’s most visited stadiums. For opponents, it’s an unnecessary experiment that risks community space and public resources.

Either way, the next year will be pivotal — and L.A.’s debate over the gondola is far from over.

Sources and links for further information

Associated Press: “Los Angeles officials seek to halt proposed Dodger Stadium gondola” — apnews.com 

Los Angeles Times: “Los Angeles City Council votes 12-1 to urge Metro to halt Dodgers gondola project” — latimes.com 

NBC Los Angeles: “Dodger Stadium gondola should be a no-go, LA City Council says” — nbclosangeles.com 

PR Newswire (project press release): “LA ART Gondola Project Takes Next Step Forward … with Release of Draft Supplemental Environmental Report” — prnewswire.com 

LAist: “Controversial Dodger Stadium gondola project gets new environmental report. Here’s how you can weigh in” — laist.com 

Official Metro page: “Los Angeles Aerial Rapid Transit (LA ART)” — metro.net 

Site for public comment: “Stop The Gondola – Public Comment” — stopthegondola.org 

CEQA Notice of Availability: “Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report – LA ART Project” — ceqanet.lci.ca.gov 

Last Updated on October 5, 2025 by Daily News Staff

NASA wants to put a nuclear reactor on the Moon by 2030 – choosing where is tricky

Clive Neal, University of Notre Dame In a bold, strategic move for the U.S., acting NASA Administrator Sean Duffy announced plans on Aug. 5, 2025, to build a nuclear fission reactor for deployment on the lunar surface in 2030. Doing so would allow the United States to gain a foothold on the Moon by the time China plans to land the first taikonaut, what China calls its astronauts, there by 2030. Apart from the geopolitical importance, there are other reasons why this move is critically important. A source of nuclear energy will be necessary for visiting Mars, because solar energy is weaker there. It could also help establish a lunar base and potentially even a permanent human presence on the Moon, as it delivers consistent power through the cold lunar night. As humans travel out into the solar system, learning to use the local resources is critical for sustaining life off Earth, starting at the nearby Moon. NASA plans to prioritize the fission reactor as power necessary to extract and refine lunar resources. As a geologist who studies human space exploration, I’ve been mulling over two questions since Duffy’s announcement. First, where is the best place to put an initial nuclear reactor on the Moon, to set up for future lunar bases? Second, how will NASA protect the reactor from plumes of regolith – or loosely fragmented lunar rocks – kicked up by spacecraft landing near it? These are two key questions the agency will have to answer as it develops this technology.

Where do you put a nuclear reactor on the Moon?

The nuclear reactor will likely form the power supply for the initial U.S.-led Moon base that will support humans who’ll stay for ever-increasing lengths of time. To facilitate sustainable human exploration of the Moon, using local resources such as water and oxygen for life support and hydrogen and oxygen to refuel spacecraft can dramatically reduce the amount of material that needs to be brought from Earth, which also reduces cost. In the 1990s, spacecraft orbiting the Moon first observed dark craters called permanently shadowed regions on the lunar north and south poles. Scientists now suspect these craters hold water in the form of ice, a vital resource for countries looking to set up a long-term human presence on the surface. NASA’s Artemis campaign aims to return people to the Moon, targeting the lunar south pole to take advantage of the water ice that is present there.

In order to be useful, the reactor must be close to accessible, extractable and refinable water ice deposits. The issue is we currently do not have the detailed information needed to define such a location. The good news is the information can be obtained relatively quickly. Six lunar orbital missions have collected, and in some cases are still collecting, relevant data that can help scientists pinpoint which water ice deposits are worth pursuing. These datasets give indications of where either surface or buried water ice deposits are. It is looking at these datasets in tandem that can indicate water ice “hot prospects,” which rover missions can investigate and confirm or deny the orbital observations. But this step isn’t easy. Luckily, NASA already has its Volatiles Investigating Polar Exploration Rover mission built, and it has passed all environmental testing. It is currently in storage, awaiting a ride to the Moon. The VIPER mission can be used to investigate on the ground the hottest prospect for water ice identified from orbital data. With enough funding, NASA could probably have this data in a year or two at both the lunar north and south poles.

How do you protect the reactor?

Once NASA knows the best spots to put a reactor, it will then have to figure out how to shield the reactor from spacecraft as they land. As spacecraft approach the Moon’s surface, they stir up loose dust and rocks, called regolith. It will sandblast anything close to the landing site, unless the items are placed behind large boulders or beyond the horizon, which is more than 1.5 miles (2.4 kilometers) away on the Moon. Scientists already know about the effects of landing next to a pre-positioned asset. In 1969, Apollo 12 landed 535 feet (163 meters) away from the robotic Surveyor 3 spacecraft, which showed corrosion on surfaces exposed to the landing plume. The Artemis campaign will have much bigger lunar landers, which will generate larger regolith plumes than Apollo did. So any prepositioned assets will need protection from anything landing close by, or the landing will need to occur beyond the horizon. Until NASA can develop a custom launch and landing pad, using the lunar surface’s natural topography or placing important assets behind large boulders could be a temporary solution. However, a pad built just for launching and landing spacecraft will eventually be necessary for any site chosen for this nuclear reactor, as it will take multiple visits to build a lunar base. While the nuclear reactor can supply the power needed to build a pad, this process will require planning and investment. Human space exploration is complicated. But carefully building up assets on the Moon means scientists will eventually be able to do the same thing a lot farther away on Mars. While the devil is in the details, the Moon will help NASA develop the abilities to use local resources and build infrastructure that could allow humans to survive and thrive off Earth in the long term. Clive Neal, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Notre Dame This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.