The idea of traveling cross-country via train can be a thrilling one. But does the reality really live up to the idea? And do we have the infrastructure to support it? Last week, U.S. Rep. Seth Moulton introduced a bill to Congress that would invest billions of dollars into a high-speed rail. The Massachusetts congressman joined GBH’s Morning Edition co-host Paris Alston to discuss the bill. This transcript has been lightly edited for clarity.

Paris Alston: Needless to say, we know a lot about the ups and downs of rail travel around here, considering the MBTA. But let's look nationally to start for a second here. How would you describe the state of rail travel?

Rep. Seth Moulton: Pathetically behind, about a century behind. Most Amtrak trains today literally have longer schedules — they travel more slowly — than the same trains 100 years ago. That's how behind we are in America.

Alston: So how would this bill that you've proposed rejuvenate that? And what exactly is in it?

Moulton: Well, we've just never built a modern rail system the way we built a modern highway system. You know, we didn't just add a lane to Route 1 50 years ago, we built 95. We've never built the equivalent for our rail system. So our tracks are still the way they were laid out in some cases as long ago as the 1830s.

So what this bill would do is finally put money into building a modern high-speed rail system, the same systems that we have in all over the world. I mean, literally every developed country on earth either has or is building high-speed rail except for the United States.

Alston: And exactly how fast is high speed? Like, say, if we wanted to go from Boston to D.C., a route that you would be taking quite often, how fast would you want that to be?

Moulton: That's right. That would be about three hours. So the top speed would be between 225 and 250 mph. You could do it even faster than three hours if you didn't stop. But it would totally transform travel on the Northeast corridor. Just think about that route between Boston and Washington, with a stop in New York and Philadelphia and perhaps a few other places. It would totally take over air travel so everyone would be on the train. That means there would be enough traffic for a train about every 10 minutes. So imagine just showing up at South Station in Boston and getting a train every 10 minutes — if you miss your train, OK, wait nine minutes more — and getting to Washington in three hours with never a weather delay, never a late train. In fact, in Spain they give you your money back if the train is about five minutes late.

Alston: Yeah, we'll take that.

Moulton: It's hard to imagine in America, right? Can you imagine an airline or Amtrak, for that matter, giving you your entire money back if a train is five minutes late or a plane is five minutes late?

Alston: No, because sometimes you're sitting there waiting, right? It's hard to even get a voucher for that time.

Moulton: Exactly. We don't know what we're missing.

Alston: Yeah, I know you're pointing to Europe as an example, but what infrastructure and capabilities might exist there that we don't have here?

Moulton: Oh, I mean, they have a lot, but they just built it. And in many cases they built it very recently. Spain built its entire high-speed rail system in the last 20 years. They started with just one line, and then every other province said, 'Hey, we want that too.' And they built it very quickly.

So I'm cautiously optimistic that if we get just one or two true high-speed rail lines in America, the country will wake up and say, 'Oh my gosh, I cannot believe we've been missing this for so long.' It will transform travel around the country.

Alston: Another facet of this: You say this plan will create 2.6 million jobs, but in recent years we've seen worker shortages on both the MBTA here locally and Amtrak. Now, even if those jobs are there, how do we get the people in place to do them and ensure safety and efficiency?

Moulton: Well, of course, this is a much bigger problem than just our infrastructure, our rail system. There are historic job shortages all across America that in large part have to do with our broken immigration system. We can't get people in here legally to do work, and yet we have a lot of people — this migrant crisis, of course, with people flooding our shelters and everything — who don't have work permits. So, I mean, just think about if you had a functioning immigration system that encouraged people to come here legally to get their work permits properly, just like we always used to have, we'd solve this problem overnight.

Alston: And what about commuters? I mean, I know you're saying that this could be a better alternative to flying, but some people like getting on the plane ... you can get to Boston, D.C. in an hour and a half. So what would need to be done to change the hearts and minds of people who would rather drive or fly?

Moulton: Well, first of all, you can't get to DC in an hour and a half. That's just the time it takes to literally do the flight. But think about how much time you spend going through security, waiting for delayed planes, sitting on the tarmac. All that adds up to often more than three hours. And of course, you're stuffed in an aluminum tube 30,000 feet in the air. Just hoping, thank God, that the door doesn't blow out. I think people will choose a nice, comfortable, fast, efficient, on-time train over a plane any day of the week. And that's exactly the experience that we've seen nationwide.

In fact, there are far fewer flights between Washington, D.C., and Boston and New York and Boston, just because Amtrak has decent train service — although it's certainly not reliable and it's certainly not high speed.

Alston: Now, turning back locally for a second here, you have been on board for the long discussed North-South rail link that would connect North Station and South Station. Where are we on that effort?

Moulton: Well, we're actually reaching a critical decision point because Massachusetts is facing a choice as to whether to expand South Station at the cost of billions and billions of dollars and just add a few tracks, that's it, plus a bunch of rail yards that will just put polluting trains close to the city — or put all of that underground in a rail link that doesn't actually cost all that much more. In fact, by some estimates, when you factor in the savings, it costs less than expanding South Station, and it means that the Northeast Corridor will be complete under the city. So in practical terms, that means that I could get on a train in Salem, where I live, and be to Boston in 20 minutes, in just 20 minutes. Think about how much faster that is than driving today. And I could just wait on that same platform five or 10 minutes [and] you can get a train to New York or Washington. So it would totally transform, travel around the state, and then imagine if you built high-speed rail to Chicago. That'd be a great way to get to Chicago. You could do it in four hours. It also means you could get to Springfield in 45 minutes. Housing crisis solved overnight.

Alston: Well, that is Congressman Seth Moulton. And, Congressman, before we let you go, I got to play a little bit of this, Dua Lipa's "Training Season," which is one of the tracks off of your playlist, your training mix that you've got to get us pumped for the possibility of a high-speed rail. So if folks want to check that out, that is on Spotify. Congressman Seth Moulton, thank you so much.

Moulton: Absolutely. Thank you.