Maglev On the Drawing Boards 334
longacre sends along a Popular Mechanics article on the growing interest in magnetic levitation trains in the US. It's unclear how many will actually get built here, at $100 million per track mile. (In recent years we've discussed maglev projects in China and Germany.) The article has a map of many proposed transportation projects in the US, some of them maglev, and a video of a General Atomics maglev prototype in action. On a related note, an anonymous reader recommends this article on a proposed maglev wind-power turbine, said to offer the promise of replacing 1,000 conventional wind turbines.
How much is that in ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Geez. As if finding money to throw around was ever a problem for politicians. And building a coast-to-coast maglev line would be a much less dangerous waste of money than some other, er, projects.
Too expensive? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe this technology is still 20 years away from being feasible at all. Why not spend money on regular trains and install extra isolated windows in cities at only a fraction of the cost?
Need track upgrades, but not this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why get so fancy? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Maglevs are just techno-posing (Score:4, Insightful)
A monorail is far from ideal.
Re:math (Score:3, Insightful)
Another stadium please (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:math (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Why get so fancy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, the French TVG is also about that fast, so that advantage no longer really holds much weight until the technology improves. Maglev right now is pretty much a "bright shiny thing" to make the public all doe-eyed so they don't mind the pork as much. (Much like the "Hydrogen Economy")
You might not have noticed, but America is a pretty big country. If you want to cross it, you have three options: Plane (~500MPH), Train (~80MPH) or car/bus (~60MPH). Assuming you're not making the trip for the scenery, the choice is pretty much a no-brainer.
A fast train, ~300MPH, would make trans-continental travel easier. Even if it took twice as long, it would still be same-day travel and I'd prefer to take a high speed train than an aircraft (unless I *had* to get there in 6 hours). If a viable Maglev train could cover the distance at the same speed as the jet, though, then there is no advantage to flying at all.
=Smidge=
Re:math (Score:2, Insightful)
Get an honest answer from the Republican party and the oil lobbyists about why we invaded Iraq.
I know its popular to blame the war for everything (Score:4, Insightful)
How many votes per mile of track can a Congressman buy?
Answer that instead.
The amount of money just wasted in earmarks alone could solve a multitude of problems, from medical care, rehabilitation for our vets, maglev, NASA, and more. You name it, we have the money for it.
The problem is, not all of the above garner vote buying opportunities.
The real reason the Iraq war annoys Congressmen is that it deprives them of money they could have used in directed vote buying campaigns. Instead of a monument to a living Congressman (read: new pool in your neighborhood or library - etc) it went overseas and is lost to them. Now it does garner votes in a negative way but Congressmen prefer postive vote buying expenditures.
Now the problem I see with the maglev tower is, who is going to want it in their backyard? It looks more palatable than a windfarm but its so damn tall that that the land area may be moot versus the "sight pollution". Of course we already have giant cooling towers but this thing looks larger.
We really need a new Mahattan project for our generation - one that frees us of fossil fuel generated power. Of course our next problem will be heat pollution - all that power does have a side effect (green power or not)
Re:Why get so fancy? (Score:5, Insightful)
True, but a significant portion of intra-US trips take place within the northeast, the most densely populated part of the country. Washington-Boston is 450 miles; New York-Chicago is 800 miles. There's also a lot of intra-West Coast travel -- LA-San Francisco (400 miles), LA-Phoenix (375), San Francisco-Seattle (800 miles).
One of my pet peeves is that many Americans, when told about how Europeans are much more likely to travel by train, reflexively point out how big America is. It's true, but when Europeans travel from, say, Madrid to Warsaw, they fly. It's the sub-1000-mile trips on which trains can be competitive with both air and car travel if they're upgraded to high-speed standards -- something that can be done far more cheaply and easily than building a maglev. And with trains being far less polluting per passenger than either cars or planes, and air travel being an increasingly unpleasant experience, it's high time to invest in upgrading rail corridors.
Free 747s for everybody would be cheaper. (Score:3, Insightful)
Plus, what about all the new power cables and power stations it would need. A project this big would cause a worldwide shortage of copper (which would push the "price per mile" through the roof).
America is simply too big for this sort of project. Building vast stretches of maglev track doesn't add up.
Re:Why get so fancy? (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope it continues to increase. There is currently a bill [kidk.com] that will give Amtrak a much needed funding increase. Before all the trolls start saying that rail is wasteful consider carefully that any road in the U.S is subsidized heavily. Amtrak has done an amazing turnaround over the last 8 years despite the airline and road construction lobbyists trying to kill it. If Amtrak had even a small amount of the funding that airlines and interstates have recieved during this period we could all have an economical and comfortable travel alternative. I hope they build one or more of the Maglevs simply because I live in Chattanooga (Choo-Choo). We don't even have passenger rail service and haven't since 1970. As anyone who has been to Europe, or ridden on a well managed Amtrak line can attest to, rail is comfortable and fun. For me riding the rails is not as much just getting there, but enjoying the ride.
It is a sad state when a supposed first world country like the U.S tries to kill travel alternative like rail. When all the planes were grounded after 9/11 the trains kept rolling. When gas goes to 4.00/gallon they will be rolling. That is reason enough to support passenger rail. Oh, if anyone with Amtrak happens to read Slashdot, why the hell does a city like Chattanooga, Tn which was once one the largest rail capitals in the world, not even have a passenger service? That is a disgrace. We want rail service and we want it badly. Norfolk Southern and CSX also lobby against passenger travel because they want the mainlines all to themselves for frieght. Be it maglev or diesel electric passenger service Chattanooga should have an alternative to driving or flying. We didn't get the song Chattanooga Choo Choo for just any old reason.
Build it, and they will come. With flying becoming even more of a hassle, and fuel prices on an ever higher trajectory passenger traffic rail will continue to increase. On a train you can go to the dining car and have room to stretch out, have wifi and a nice cocktail. Chattanooga not having passenger service is the greatest single disgrace our city has at this time. It is part of our heritage. It truly is heartbreaking, so Amtrak, build it or at least open one line to Atlanta. The future is bright for rail folks. One way or the other the economics are starting to make sense again.
Re:Why get so fancy? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why get so fancy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Can we drop this terrorism bullshit already? It's very tiring.
I say this as somebody who daily used the train that got blown up in Madrid (though wasn't on it at that time), had a classmate die there, and a friend who was in it, but wasn't hurt. I don't give a damn about the terrorists. I still use that same train.
Re:Why get so fancy? (Score:2, Insightful)
It will work as long as the stations on the Maglev route are integrated with both local public transport and accessibility for cars with reasonable rate car parks. All too often these things are done in a vacuum, thus being too awkward for people to care to use them. If you can drive, park, and get on the maglev, it will work. That's why airports have been successful, and why trains haven't succeeded so well. Hell, in the UK they can't even get the buses interconnecting with the train station in many locations, resulting in two bus changes in an 8 mile journey just to get onto the train - and they wonder why there is so much congestion on the road even when fuel is over £1 a litre.
A successful Maglev station will have (in my opinion with not too much thought, I welcome additions and amendments):
1) A big bus terminal, interconnecting with the local airport, city and residential areas
2) A local rail station, interconnecting with local rail systems (if applicable for the area)
3) A huge car park on site.
4) A vast remote car park (near highways) with free park and ride bus scheme.
5) A service that runs at least every half hour.
Let's not forget that the fares for the Maglev itself have to be reasonable, as they have to compete with car travel (even though the Maglev will have advantages that are worth a surcharge).
Re:Why get so fancy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Additionally, these mountains tend to have pretty steep pitches, meaning that low-enough grades for rail transport are few and far between.
Out East, where the density of population is higher and the land considerably flatter, trains can maintain speed. It can make sense in that case. But here, where a lot of the daily flights are literally one-day business trips, spending 6 hours each way on a train between Seattle and San Francisco turns a one-day trip into at least a 3 day affair.