Finally, Maglev Leadership
Washington hosted the Transportation Research Board’s (TRB) annual meeting just prior to President Obama’s inauguration. One month earlier, over 200 participants from 16 countries attended the 20th biannual International Maglev Systems Conference in San Diego. Only this year, there were no TRB maglev presentations, nor were there any Federal Railroad Administration or Federal Transit Administration representatives. So why was the most advanced transport technology conspicuously ignored? Answer: the Bush administration was anti-maglev and discouraged official review or acceptance of the technology.
Things have changed. President Obama provided some much needed leadership and pushed America forward when he personally insisted that maglev construction funding be included in the stimulus bill. He truly understands the urgent need for high-speed electric-powered intercity transportation systems that are energy and land-use efficient.
Maglevs use magnetic levitation for propulsion and suspension along dedicated guide ways and represent a transportation revolution because several inherently undesirable characteristics of wheeled transport are eliminated or dramatically reduced, namely vibration, noise and wear and tear on parts from friction. Higher speeds are achievable without the penalty of increased maintenance costs. This translates into higher system reliability and increased sustainability due to the resulting longer service life and lower life-cycle costs.
Paying for maglev systems will require America’s transportation priorities to be less automobile and airline dominant. During the past eight years the federal government invested over $50 billion in new runway and taxiway projects, airport facilities and air-traffic-control technology. While new runways allow more take-offs and landings, they do nothing to reduce America’s dependence on oil or reduce highway congestion, much less aid travel in inclement weather or improve traveler comfort.
What if $50 billion was spent on comfortable, high-speed maglev systems? America’s airlines are not adequate substitutes for mass transportation, especially for distances of 600 miles or less. Imagine a 70-minute maglev trip from New York City to Washington, D.C., including stops. Why fly?
An Alternative
Maglev can provide an alternative to long car trips by providing a highly reliable and superfast transport system that connects all major cities along a route. Such routes would create demand for commuter feeder lines and spur new real estate development.
During TRB’s conference, several professionals said maglev was “too expensive,” but then admitted to having no access to technology specifics or actual costs. Yet, without this data, it is impossible to assess maglev’s value or viability.
COATES
There were even senior Federal Transit Administration officials who were unaware of the low speed, 5.6-mile urban maglev system running in Nagoya, Japan, performing with 99.97% on-time reliability over the past four years.
The dual-track Shanghai maglev project was cost effective at about $60 million per mile, especially considering the challenging alluvial soil conditions. Since then, new guide way and construction techniques have lowered costs by as much as 30%. And data from the canceled Munich project show it was additional tunneling costs, not technology costs, that killed it.
Maglevs are cost effective because capital costs are recovered through annual maintenance costs that are about 30%less than traditional high-speed rail. This means faster loan repayment, increased financial sustainability and excellent potential for profitable operation without tax subsidies.
What gets lost with the focus on project cost is that maglev’s on-time trip reliability is close to 100%, regardless of weather conditions. Travelers choosing maglev would reduce the need to build more runways and highways, reduce pollution and enhance commerce.
Maglev systems fit seamlessly into the vision of developing first rate, financially sustainable and livable pedestrian communities that enhance, rather than compromise, citizen mobility or health. It’s about time we got with the program.
Great, more taxpayer dollars going to overseas companies. Why can't/won't American companies compete in this business?<br/>
"President Obama provided some much needed leadership and pushed America forward when he personally insisted that maglev construction funding be included in the stimulus bill."<br/><br/...
Um, no. He insisted on no such thing. There is no mention of maglev anywhere in the stimulus, President Obama is not insisting on it, and all indications from President Obama's administration are that his DOT and FRA will focus on the more practical and achievable goal of incrementally faster conventional passenger rail.
Even in a "viewpoint" article, I'm surprised ENR would let such a blatant factual mis-statement appear on its website.
That is so easy just we coplicate it is simple plan why oil companies take the afford and show us who they realy are ?Polluting the country or do something which can have benefit for ma...
In this flat world of today, U.S. should be desparetly searching for the next exportable technology. This can be one. Maglev is not new, but no one has made a truely scalable applicatio...
I worry about vandals throwing rocks on the guideway. It could be a serious problem in some areas and would be impossible to prevent. Hopefully, some sort of guideway can be designed wh...
Just for the record, I never stated in my op-ed that maglev funding was specifically mentioned in the stimulus bill. However, maglev construction funding will come from the stimulus bil...
The point here is not to parse my words (a favorite Washington blood sport), but to bring focus to solving our country's pressing transportation infrastructure needs by first exhibiting some vision. The President and Vice President have both cited the maglev in Shanghai on numerous occasions as a technology that America should be building, developing and exporting. Problem is, the expertise lies overseas - just as it does for high speed rail. Regardless of what high speed ground transportation system gets built, America will be engaging in technology transfer if we want to build true high speed (~150 mph cruising capable) ground transportation systems.
Your view that America should proceed with the "more practical and achievable goal of incrementally faster conventional passenger rail" is not backed up by historical fact. Amtrak's Acela is a prime example of the incremental improvements that you and some in the FRA are espousing. The net result after billions of dollars and decades of development is a system that is certainly not a world class passenger rail system by any stretch of the imagination, nor does it come close to adhering to the scheduled on-time reliability of the famed Shinkansen (within 9 seconds). Oh, and it is at least three times more expensive to maintain than the Shanghai maglev.
The President has vision. What he and others see when they look to Shanghai's maglev is what is possible when political will is present. I, for one, am sick and tired of hearing why we in America cannot have the best ground transportation in the world.
When are people in America going to demand high quality service instead of settling for third rate transit options simply because "expert rail consultants" (who have never built a high speed rail system in the U.S.) tell them that maglev costs too much. Where is our national pride and our drive to reach for the best?
Kevin C.
