America's fastest train moves ahead

Jerry (and others) - let me play devil's advocate here, as this is more complex than you think.

1) whether you carry your own fuel supply (car, plane, diesel locomotive) or it is generated remotely (trolleys, electric trains, maglev) That fuel may be petroleum based; there is no getting outr of that (we are already using up all the Hydro power we are likely to ever generate, wind turbines are just now becoming useful, tidal power is coming shortly, solar is much further off)

2) Maglev, by it's use of a different technology, requires "private right of way"; which means you have to build totally new systems; while electric rail just requires overhead power lines (or outside third powered rail, which requires p.r.o.w.), electric buses only requires overhead power lines (and again using it for true mass transit requires p.r.o.w. or a mix of some street and some p.r.o.w. for keeping out of traffic); etc. There is a cost factor

3) Maglev has, so far, proven to be more of an amusement, much like "monorail"s, there just isn't the traffic to justify the cost. Imagine, no matter how many / few people ride it, the fuel cost is nearly the same (how much weight you are moving times the efficiency of the system in moving - steel wheels on steel rails are so far the most efficient, rubber tires on asphalt are less efficient at transferring movement: Maglev is more efficient than steel but is it worth the cost differential?)

4) Then you have the people / maintenance / etc. costs: what do you have to watch out for with maglev's; pebbles, stones, rocks in the roadway? Garbage ("tin" and metal cans, aluminum cans; etc.) The people (driver's, etc.) are why some small area's have gone to "people movers" (unmanned cars on tracks- like at airports)

I agree we need to look at alternatives: for example, Robert Heinlein's "Rolling Road" for example (a slideway - conveyor belt type of system also used in some airports) which eliminates the need for vehicle's (remember that nasty notion of efficiency being related to how much weight you are trying to move? eliminate the vehicle and you eliminate the weight) as described in the novella "The Roads Must Roll".

Or eliminating the commute altogether - like by requiring businesses to pay a tax on how far their employees have to commute - makes "business parks", etc. a bad idea as they require people from all over to meet in one place for no other reason than so management can count heads.

I am not convinced that maglev is much more than an expensive toy. Anything with a p.r.o.w. could successfully "run right down the middle of the Long Island (NY) Expressway (elevated between the HOV lanes with elevated access and departure spikes)", be it electric train, people mover, electric bus, etc. and would most likely have pretty much the same benefit for a much smaller cost.

This is a very well reasoned post and so it leaves me with only one quibble: we must replace short haul air travel with something equally swift, so that its convenience will pull this portion of air travel customers away from the skies.

Airlines not only put more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere per mile traveled than any of the ground or rail alternatives; airlines expel these gases at high enough altitudes that their impact is greater than an equivalent amount emitted by car or bus or train. The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that the climate impact from air travel is two to four times greater than the effect of their carbon dioxide emissions alone - due to the chemical reactions caused by these high altitude emissions.

Any air route that is self-described as a shuttle - LA to Vegas; Boston to NYC to DC; Chicago to St. Louis; Dallas to Houston to San Antonio to New Orleans, Memphis to Louisville; Denver to Salt Lake City; Seattle to Portland; Miami to Orlando to Tampa to Atlanta - should be replaced with mag-level travel. I bet analysis would show that all of the above routes could be created for less than $1T or roughly equivalent to one-third of what this latest Iraq War will cost the American taxpayers, once the veterans care is included. And that is assuming this horrible war ends in the next four years.

Just think: in the same amount of time as a $3T war for oil - the eight years of 2003 to 2011 - we could go from having no mag-lev trains to mag-lev lines on the major short haul routes across the country. We could replace the air routes that commonly ply this air space and the climate changing emissions they produce, with equally fast, equally reliable and vastly superior environmentally mag-lev trains that whisk passengers in comfort from point to point as opposed to crammed into middle seats that do not recline.

Jerry,

I totally agree -- we cannot regress to building transportation technologies (trains) that have been proven by the market to be unsustainable. We must be progressive, maglev IS progressive technology-- but not if applied to trains.

Cost is the main factor in mode selection if all other variables are the same. Efficiency improvement is the way forward. Efficiency improvement has many aspects:

*Energy -- this is becoming more important as the cost of energy goes up due to depletion of low cost sources. Energy efficiency depends on the vehicle weight and to a greater extent drag force such as aerodynamic resistance. * Material use efficiency -- it takes 30 times more concrete and steel to support a train locomotive than to support an economy car sized vehicle. * Labor -- automation can improve labor efficiency at far less cost than making vehicles bigger, and by eliminating complex parts and especially moving parts in the design. * Time -- speed of travel improvement is key to improving time efficiency.

Evacuated Tube Transport (ETT) (tm) employees these principals, and others to yield a quantum improvement in transportation efficiency and effectiveness.

Bob,

The fact is that aerodynamic resistance limits speed of trains before the limits of steel wheels are reached. This is proven by the fact that the HSR (high speed rail) record set by the TGV is faster than the speed of the only maglev train in passenger service, and almost as fast as the maglev speed record set by the experimental Japaneese maglev.

I with you agree that maglev is a requirement for a competitive transportation system to meet future needs -- it must be properly applied to an automotive/road transportation philosophy (the clear market winner) instead of moribund train/railroad technology. PRT (Personal Rapid Transit) offers far better benifit to cost ratio than trains do -- and there are a few PRT systems that advocate the use of maglev.

Paul,

You make a good point that new alternatives should be compared on their relative merits. We do not need government to do this for us -- the market does it automatically and far more efficiently! IMO, what is needed is for government to get out of the transportation business so the alternatives can compete in a truly open market.

George,
Great post, and thanks for your continued efforts to better our society. It is, truly, unfortunate that we Americans focus on better, more efficient, motives usually when the proverbial crap hits the fan, i.e. gas and heating fuel prices. Maybe it is that monumental time when we listen to the bearers of common sense, like yourself, and come to the conclusion that we need to pioneer new efficient and environmental ways to survive, lest we grind our economy into dust.

Thanks. JK

Your supreme arrogance comes through loud and clear in your post; and so does your lack of knowledge. You ask what does speed have to do with track capacity - it does not even take any effort to answer that question. Speed allows you to make more runs in a given period of time. This allows you to move more goods/people in that same period of time over a given route (track). Unless there is an advantage in speed of getting to a destination, people will not give up the convenience of driving their own vehicles.

An major advantage to maglev that you overlook is that it is relatively quiet. Existing trains are extremely noisy, which limits where you can run tracks and, in some instances, what times of day you can use the tracks. The SST went out of service because the cost of the service was too high for most people to afford. If the cost had been closer to the cost of a regular airliner, it would still be flying today.

Efficient maglev and monorail train systems should be one part of the overall transportation solution. The speed and relative quiet of these systems allows for the running of track in areas where you would never be able to run regular trains. A part of the equation that we can not overlook is that adequate parking will be needed wherever a terminal is located and the cost of parking must be kept reasonable.

When looking at transportation solutions, we all do a cost benefit analysis. The people who use mass transit solely because it is more environmentally friendly are few and far between. I do not necessarily feel that LA to Vegas is the best use of funds; I would need to see an analysis of the expected ridership to justify the route. I think that a line from DC to Philly to NY to Boston would be the best place for an initial development. The Acella train that they are using does not provide a high enough time margin to justify the additional cost - plus it must slow down in a number of places because the tracks can not handle the speed.

For airlines, faster planes can make more trips per day, so speed can equate to capacity.

Similarly, a fast rail can translate into higher capacity, as each vehicle takes up less space per trip, on a time-integrated basis.

To Dr. Zev:
Maybe you don't realize faster planes are fuel inefficient. Also how are airlines going to use faster planes? Sonic booms blowing out windows everywhere and lack of space and capacity at airports already. Your post makes no sense.

I'm not advocating faster planes – just noting that they can have higher effective capacity.

I am advocating faster rail.  By eliminating rolling resistance, MagLev is very efficient even at high speeds, where air drag predominates.

I want to replace air travel and air freight with ground-based MagLev transport wherever practical.

Georges Brigham, Fellow A.A.A.S. wrote:
"What does speed have to do with track capacity? "

"Speed is nice but remember - the fastest plane, the SST, is defunct. Ever wonder why?"

"I proposed 40 years ago a Track Highspeed Automated Transport system - with not only no success, but not even any reponse or discussion. I am trying once more. I wrote to all the members of Congress, all the Governors, and the mayors of twenty major cities, with the same thunderously silent response. "

Georges,
Speed has everything to do with capacity IF and only if capacity is limited by vehicle spacing as it is with a automated system that employs "passive switching" like a freeway - where the vehicles determine a merge or diverge instead of the guideway accomplishing switching as in outmoded train tech. Consider a stream of vehicles with a vehicle pitch (distance from the nose of a vehicle to the nose of the following vehicle) of 25 feet, and the vehicles are 15 feet long leaving 10 feet of empty space between each vehicle. If the stream of vehicles is traveling at 25 feet per second velocity, the vehicle frequency is one vehicle per second. Now if the speed of all vehicles is increased at a given point on the route to 50ft/sec, then the vehicle pitch will double to 50 foot, and the distance between vehicles will be 35'. This is sufficent space to allow another stream of vehicles with the same frequency (one vehicle per second) and speed (50'/sec) to merge toghether resulting in a stream of 2 vehicles per second frequency (double the capacity. Therefore if you double the speed of such a system, the capacity is doubled as long as the distance of the merge is sufficient to maintain vehicle speed, and the spacing and timing is controlled with sufficient precision and reliability (as can occur with automation).

The SST is defunct for several reasons -- speed is not one of them -- in fact a few people valued time so much they were willing to pay more than a thousand dollars per hour of time saved. The main reasons: Sound footprint due to sonic boom limited the market size (limited ability to amortize market cost across series production), and marginal tire safety factor.

Your approach of begging government to adopt your transportation system will not likely work. As Machiavelli said almost 500 years ago, power will not yield to prayer -- but only to force. The force we have available is market force. Government always seeks to maintain the status quo ---- this is the main reason that ALL paradigm shifts in transportation have taken place first in the private market -- and usually resisted by government until AFTER the status quo barrier was broken.

Don't forget: While the Europeans successfully created a workable transportation network (one that change have it's energy source changed easily) - they also did this in conjunction with planning/growth regulations which prohibit people from building where ever the h*ll they want.

Part of our problem now is that even if we build decent transporation systems in all our major cities, our suburbs are so spread out that it would be difficult for them to serve people in an effective manner.

What should happen is that we should restrict growth outside Urban Growth Boundaries (as we now do here in Washington State) - and additional development should only occurr along corridors which are planned for major transport. Allowing people to build sub-divisions in the middle of nowhere is stupid - it forces them to drive.

Read Howard Kunstler's 'The Long Emergency' and Google 'Peak Oil'...

See my comment to 'JK from PA'. I agree with your comment on mine - however:

The issues that confront us are not straight forward. We have been faced with the Peak Oil problem at least since 1956 (I believe) when Hubbard first came out with his estimates of the reserves in the US.

If we had taken action at that time - action to ensure development of our cities around transportation corridors - action to ensure conservation of energy resources (remember Carter's efforts to raise the CAFE Standards?) instead of consumption - action to ensure that financial solvency be the pre-requisite to market growth instead of short term gains - action to ensure that our citizens can obtain minimal/preventive healthcare to avoid costly emergencies - action to overhaul the tax code to ensure that everyone pays their fair share - and a host of other things - then we would not be where we were today.

We cannot return to the past - I realize this. However - to deal with the issues that confront us, with the only remaining resources we possess, we have to start with OPEN dialog. We can only begin to address the problem if we truly begin to discuss it (imagine if GW had said 'yes' to the existence of global warming instead of denying it - how action would have been the result instead of stonewalling).

Consider this: If you went to the doctor, and they examined you, found you had cancer, one that had a survival rate of 10% - and DID NOT tell you this - but instead said "we're not sure what you have" - would that be better or worse than telling you the truth? If they told you the truth, you could at least take some kind of action - at the very least to say goodbye to your loved ones - not to mention to actually try and DO something about the disease itself.

This is the situation that confronts us now. Our entire economy is based on oil. Forget about transportation for a moment - what about the petro-chemical industry? Dow Chemical has raised their prices 40% in the last six weeks - and they are the core/base suppliers to many of our industries - what do you think that's going to do?

Look at the city you live in - and the surrounding countryside - do you believe that the population of your city could be sustained on the food production of the lands adjacent to it? I know the Everett/Seattle/Tacoma/Olympia corridor could not be sustained by the lands in Western Washington. What's going to happen when the oil-based fertilizers - those that have allowed us to exceed our lands carrying capacity - cease to be available - and we begin to have lower yields and/or crop failures?

My point is this: The American people need to be given true damage estimates about our situation, and what options we have going forward. No candidate is talking about this - not McCain, not Obama. No one wants to talk about because the solutions are difficult if at all possible. Very few people in Washington are even taking this seriously.

And regarding the Japanese - I have friends in Japan, in business and government - and believe me, they understand the nature of their existence. Until this most recent generation, they towed the line as a society - and the long term interests (of the country) were always considered before those of the individual. They invested in their technologies long ago because they know that quality and longevity are the most important aspects of an automobile - not 'gee-whiz' features.

We do need new technologies - and argument is the same as that in our heath care:

A- Do we need top-of-the-line technologies for a select few, or
B- Do we need reasonable/proven technologies for the masses?

We only have a few dollars left - where do you want to spend it?

Wow, I think the time has arrived for these lively discussions. Actually, I feel that the time as long past for the general public to open their eyes and start taking part in researching all of the elements to our dependence on oil. In fact, most people have had their eyes open but have chosen not to see. When you give your example about whether to be told you have a 10% chance of survival or not to be told anything, one thing you don't ask or address in that scenario is that the odds are you are pretty much gone and with only those odds, do you want to suffer the pain necessary to postpone a death that is surely going to come? I was very excited to read about this new means of transportation being studied and considered. If this is found to be a viable, efficient, cost effective means of transportation after honest research, with HONEST construction and operating cost assessements , I for one, would jump on board. We can not continue to survive the way we our going. Having gone through many "ups and downs" our country has gone through, I must say that I have never been so concerned about my survivial, the survival of my family, and even more so, the survival of generations that will come after me. We can not wait any longer and frankly, I believe there already are other means of transportation that have been developed out there but have been "squashed" over the years by the big oil companies and by the big people who run them. The fact that many of those people find their way into our government is no accident. Unfortunatley, up until now, a small section of our society, the rich and the powerful, had convinced many people that if they are supported, they will get rich rich a long with them. Well, the laugh is on us. Although I now live in North Dakota, I grew up in California and still consider it my "home". When I go back to visit, I am appalled by how many people have been driving huge gas guzzling 4-wheel drive vehicles to drive in the city back and forth to work. Give me a BREAK. The people that really need those vehicles to be able to get from point A to point B in actual off-road conditions, can't afford them, especially since they are now "luxary" vehicles. I now live in North Dakota which is an extremely rural state surviving on agriculture. The price of fuel is devastaing to the rural way of life as it has become almost impossible to scrape out a living and still live in a small town. Small towns are integral to our country's way of life. Without them the puzzle of our country could never be complete. Throughout history, small towns have always been the birth mother to large cities They have had to face numerous challanges over the years to survive and they are losing the battle. I bring this up because of the huge impact the oil crisis is having by the people living in rural area. Corporate farming has dessimated the small town and it is not only the crowding of our city/suburban highways that need help, it is also the little guy who just wants a job and has to drive 30 miles each way to get it. Contrary to most beliefs, it isn't cheaper to live in a small town. The only thing that is cheaper is housing but survival costs such as food, medical care, insurance,etc. are very costly here as well. In fact, if someone can afford to get the 30 miles to a job, chances are they won't make more than $7-8 hour, will be lucky if it is full time and even luckier if it has benefits.

Until people educate themselves and open up their eyes we will never obtain change. We need to put aside the hypocrical arguments big corporations and lobbies make everytime something is proposed that will help us but hurt their profits. Think about it, when we look to make changes in health care to benefit us, what happened? The big drug companies and health insurance companies put together billions and billions of dollars worth of ads to convince people that it would be bad for them.

I am going to end this long post with a little hope. George Will (who I absolutely never agree with) said one thing about the tenacity of our country. Throughout history, man's biggest asset for survivial has been its ability to change. When people get fed up enough is when changes take place and we are pushed forward find solutions. It is time to be "fed up" and stop letting the wealthy in our country to continue to tell us we are okay and what is good for them is good for us. Where can I invest my $5 in this project?

I think you need to consider this:

What would you do if flying were suddenly not an option at all - either due to the cost or existence of the airline?

You guys are arguing over "choosing cedar shake or composite shingles on the roof" when the house itself is on fire. You're arguing over whether you should attend Harvard or MIT, and you're not even able to read! I think the priorities of the United States need to be examined...

Our rail infrastructure itself is in horrible condition - which far exceeds our ability to consider high-end alternatives. The US is leveraged to the hilt, and we're down to selling off our landmarks. I really think that the consideration of - simple transportation of people - should be the main consideration....

MagLev is too good to be wasted on trains.  Railroad trains are not fast if you're not going were they're going.  What good is a 310-m.p.h. train if it keeps on having to stop at a stations?

For my full comments, look for my screenname, "Dr. Zev", below.

This is a topic that needs a complete insight into the lobbying power and other things in DC and government. Years ago many states had high speed rail studies commissioned. The government of states such as Florida, Jeb Bush pooh poohed such things and even the studies findings. The airlines have a very powerful lobby in this country. Amtrak etc does not. All rail infrastructure and service, high speed rail, in Europe is subsidised by the taxpayers there. The TGV in France is subsidised by the French citizen through taxes. Airlines do not pay the full amount of infrastructure costs when new airport expansions take place. It is also subsidised by taxpayers here in whatever state the airport is in. So for the argument why subsidise high speed rail when airlines are independent businesses that have to sink or swim on their own. That is only partially true. Politics and government are a large reason there are no bullet trains in north america. I have ridden the TGV express all over France and also Amtrak wanna be service here in the states. Boston to Washington D. C. Amtrak with limited funding and also hoping for a budget from congress has to make do with what they get. France and the TGV operation is run as a professional operation. Amtraks high speed Acela service is hit or miss. America is in love with their auto's and is only waking up now to other transportation systems because of highly rising fuel costs.

This is because EU is more socialized -- and the HUGE tax placed on gasoline and Diesel is used to fund luxury high speed train travel for the relative few who live close enough to a station to be able to use it. more than 75% of passenger miles in France is automotive. The Economist reported a few years ago that the French rail system is loosing more than 2B Euro per year (more than double AMTRAKs abysmal losses).

Train travel is more costly than air travel in spite of the subsidy and in spite of the fact that air travelers pay most of the cost of train travel through the oppressive tax on fuel and landing fees at airports. (A major study by the German government proves that airports in the EU are net income producers for government).

Bob,

You make a good point that a train locomotive can pull a staggering load -- this is what trains were designed and optimized to do -- haul massive loads. The speed is low though (14mph average speed in the US) for freight trains-- this limits usefulness for time sensitive cargo. Trucks have a termanal to terminal average speed more than three times faster than trains -- but use three times as much fuel. It is worth the fuel cost to move time sensitive cargo like produce. A coal train car can carry more than 100 tons of coal in a single car -- and trains, tracks, and bridges are all designed to acept the massive loads imposed on the wheels. To to be loaded with a 100tons of people, a passenger train would have to be loaded with 1,400 passengers per train car! Therefore, passenger trains even when loaded with standing passengers packed in like sardines, only operate at less than 20% of the capacity of a freight train loaded to it's capacity. This is one of many reasons that passenger trains have been displaced to niche markets by automobiles and jets.

Jon,

The marginal benefits are NOT worth it. It is already PROVEN by the market that trains are not sustainable. It is already proven that the average cost of a passenger train in the US is more than 80 cents per passenger-mile, (and this ignores the infrastructure amortization cost). Therefore the cost of travel would only be greatly increased by maglev.

Great point Jeff!

Money spent on roads outperforms money spent on passenger trains by a factor of 40 to 50 to one (depending on what "external" costs are included).

The US is the most powerfully country in the world because it has made wiser investments. Investments in freeways and automotive improvements have proven much more economically productive than investments in train tech improvement.