MAGLEV AN OPTION FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

CalTrade Report ^ | May 1 - May 15, 2004

[Willie Green]

For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.

LOS ANGELES - The Los Angeles Times reports that the backers of two multibillion-dollar, high-speed rail projects are throwing their support behind a plan crafted by the California High-Speed Rail Authority to bring its San Francisco-to-San Diego maglev rail line through Los Angeles.

At the same time, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) hopes for a magnetic-levitation system that would criss-cross Southern California.

The California High-Speed Rail Authority recently held a public hearing today in Los Angeles on its draft environmental report. The $37 billion project calls for running electric trains at 200 mph between Northern and Southern California, connecting its major cities and airports.

The trains would carry an estimated 32 million passengers annually by 2020. For $59 one way, travelers could go between Los Angeles' Union Station and San Francisco in about three hours. A trip between Palmdale and downtown LA would take about a half-hour.

Key for San Fernando Valley-area commuters is whether the Bakersfield-to-Los Angeles route should follow the Interstate 5 Freeway corridor or swing around to Palmdale.

Northern Los Angeles County is expected to swell from 500,000 residents today to 1.1 million by 2030, according to SCAG. Also, two major housing projects are planned along the 5 Freeway - the already approved Newhall Ranch and the proposed Centennial community at Tejon Ranch.

The project has a spot on the November ballot for a $9.9 billion bond to begin work, but various laws to postpone that measure are pending in Sacramento.

As the California project undergoes the environmental review, SCAG continues to pursue efforts to build a high-speed maglev system linking Southern California's communities. The first leg would be a $5 billion, 55-mile route between West Los Angeles and Ontario Airport.

A separate maglev project by the 15-year-old California-Nevada Super Speed Train Commission also proposes a route between Orange County and Las Vegas.

While the state project would be built with taxpayer funds, SCAG wants to have the maglev system built and operated privately.

More information on the proposed maglev rail projects can be found at www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov

[Willie Green]

.

Magnetic levitation (Maglev) is an advanced technology in which magnetic forces lift, propel, and guide a vehicle over a guideway. Utilizing state-of-the-art electric power and control systems, this configuration eliminates contact between vehicle and guideway and permits cruising speeds of up to 300 mph, or almost two times the speed of conventional high-speed rail service. Because of its high speed, Maglev offers competitive trip-time savings to auto and aviation modes in the 40- to 600-mile travel markets–an ideal travel option for the 21st century.

Both the Pennsylvania and Baltimore-Washington plans utilize maglev technology developed by Transrapid International. The German design is based on a conventional non-superconductingelectromagnetic/attractive magnetic configuration, and has received extensive testing at a full-scale test track in Emsland, Germany. The latest design represents over 20 years of design evolution and 15 years' testing of full-scale Transrapid prototypes, including safety certification by the German government for passenger-carrying revenue service at speeds of 250 mph or higher.

Highlights of the Transrapid system are:

• High cruising speeds of 200 to 300 mph (320 kph to 480 kph)
  

• Fast acceleration and braking with outstanding passenger comfort
  

• Can climb 10% grades at full speed
  

• Safe operation on dedicated grade-separated track, or guideway
  

• Vehicle wraps around guideway to reduce risk of derailment
  

• Low electromagnetic field emission and interference potential
  

• Standard superelevation, or tilt, of 12 degrees (max. up to 16 degrees) to navigate curves
  

• Proven and tested automatic operations control system
  

• Minimal guideway maintenance with small footprint
  

• High system capacity
  

• Guideway energized sequentially for dynamic vehicle "block" control and reduced power demand
  

• Improved aerodynamic vehicle design for minimal turbulence
  

• Multiple levels of redundancy built in for safe operations at all speeds
  

• Final safety approval anticipated in Germany for commercial operations
  

• Prior evaluation and safety analysis by the US Department of
  Transportation accepted Transrapid for deployment in Orlando, Florida in 1992

The Transrapid is suitable for transporting goods as well. For high-speed cargo transport, special cargo sections can be combined with passenger sections or assembled to form dedicated cargo trains (payload up to 18 tons per section). As the propulsion system is in the guideway, neither the length of the vehicle nor the payload affect the acceleration power.

If you would like more information about Maglev, visit the Transrapid International website or Maglev of Pennsylvania or the Baltimore-Washington Maglev Project

[Untouchable]

Pro: Excellent for getting the illegal aliens from San Diego up to the mecca of social services that San Fran. provides.

Con: Doesn't do diddly to get LA motorists off of the congested freeways and on to public transit.

[Leisler]

Yawn. Another engineering featherbedding project to the benefit of hack payola construction firms and government unions.

Bend over taxpayers

[Wally_Kalbacken]

I researched this issue as a transportation planner in Wisconsin in the mid-1980's. At that time the only viable combinations were Detroit to Chicago. Chicago to St. Louis, Chicago to Minneapolis and Miami-Orlando-Jacksonville. The areas you would think of first - the NE Corridor and this LA-SF route were not viable at the time (and this would be even truer today - because of enormous right of way costs). These cannot coexist with freight as AMTRAK does in most of the country - and the long radius turns necessary for high speed travel require a lot of land - not to mention what would probably be completely new tunnels at various points on the way from LA to SF. My knowledge was based on Federal Reserve commissioned studies of the market for high speed rail - conducted in the early 1980's - when no one was planning transportation systems with an eye toward terrorism - today that should add a healthy increment of cost. I'd love to see it - but I don't think the economics are there. Since it would take decades to agree on any system and then develop it - it might be smart for CA to start land banking for right of way of such a system. If they wait until it is approved - it gets exponentially more expensive.

[Leisler]

I think Amtrak gives us a good idea as to the economics of this schema.

[Willie Green]

(and this would be even truer today - because of enormous right of way costs)

Actually, the overhead Maglev guideway has some construction cost advantages over more traditional grade-level railbed in this area. First of all, since the guideway is elevated, it needs only a small ground-level foot print for it's support pillars, enabling it to easily pass OVER existing infrastructure (such as roadways) with minimal interference. Additionally, compared to traditional trains that can only travel on slopes of up to 1~3% max (less steep greatly preferred), Maglev can easily handle grades of up to 10%. This enables it to traverse more rugged terrain with minimal construction cost for grading/tunneling.

[CyberAnt]

WHO THE HELL IS PAYING FOR THIS - THE PEOPLE WHO DON'T USE IT - THE TAXPAYERS OF CALIFORNIA.

[Principessa_libertas]

Ok just a few things
1. WHO is going to foot the bill for this one - I seem to have missed that. And, you KNOW that when it is not well publicized that someone is going to be raining funds on something it usually comes out of OUR pockets..... forget that whole state debt issue and education and health care... etc.
2. What exactly is it supposed to help? is it a job creating thing to help band-aid unemployment?
3. 'Untouchable' is right. Is this REALY a plan to get LA motorists off the road?! - that WON'T HELP if there is nothing to connect to it... ex. busses, carpools, etc. things that LA is not very popular for.
4. ( also from 'Untouchable') "Excellent for getting the illegal aliens from San Diego up to the mecca of social services that San Fran. provides." has anyone SEE tne streets of San Fran lately? they are ALREADY beyond full! the city may have one of the biggest soup kitchens in the US... but it is stretching to tend to the current residents up here. This may be a mecca, but it is already FULL up here. Why make it easier for more people to get here
*Disclaimer - I am not saying that the only reason people come to S.F. is because of the EXCELLENT social services that this city DOES have ( I am a student in S.F. currently and active in community outreach programs) I am sure that there are many people who would use the rail for business and leisure travel. I just think that it IS a valid point to raise that making it easier for people from elsewhere to get to this city to take advantage of it is not fair to those already here* End disclaimer

... I think that is about all for now

[Willie Green]

2. What exactly is it supposed to help?

That's an easy one:

We can only refine so much gas
Gas at $2.00 Per Gallon May Seem Cheap by Autumn (industry analyst)

Electricly powered mass transit systems help alleviate our dependency on imported oil for transportation.

[Principessa_libertas]

"Electrically powered mass transit systems help alleviate our dependency on imported oil for transportation."

I disagree. People will not USE the mass transport system EVEN IN SPITE of the gas prices if it is not actually convenient for them. if the MagLev thing is going to 'help' get people off the road in L.A. there HAS to be another method of transport attached to it. If there is no additional shuttle service, or a connecting bus root it will be more of a headache than it is worth to use the train. The people I see most inclined to use it are those that would or possibly already have alternatively fueled vehicles ANYWAY.
As it is there is the fact that the cost for the long term parking and security personnel required to man the facilities - both trains and parking - will add to the cost of the ticket. IF the cost winds-up being about equivalent to the price for gas, and driving remains easier for people to actually get to their intended destination, then the majority of people will just not use it.

[dalereed]

No one has ever built a public transportation system in this country that doesn't have to be subsidized by the taxpayers.

Eliminate all public transportation!

[Willie Green]

if the MagLev thing is going to 'help' get people off the road in L.A. there HAS to be another method of transport attached to it.

Doh.

The Maglev stations aren't going to be sitting out in a cornfield by themselves. They'll most likely be located at destinations where transfer to other modes of transportation is easily accessible: airports, buses, rental cars, local light-rail, cabs, etc. etc. Yes, and plenty of parking as well.

Many people will find it more convenient on a daily basis, others will ride only occasionally (or perhaps never at all). But people WILL use it and it WILL reduce our dependence on imported oil.

[heleny]

since the guideway is elevated, it needs only a small ground-level foot print for it's support pillars, enabling it to easily pass OVER existing infrastructure (such as roadways) with minimal interference.

If they want to build above existing roadways, why not simply build a double-decker freeway? Another freeway lane would carry far more people than a train, even if it were an express lane with on/offramps only where there would have been stations.

Besides, by the time a Maglev or a double-decker freeway could actually be built here, cars could have onboard computers that navigate them, since the technology already exists and personal computers capable of running the programs now cost less than $500. What a joy it would be to have cars drive themselves for people who have long commutes.

[Principessa_libertas]

Quick question - is there a map with the proposed stops in LA anywhere? - it would possibly help your case because I am from LA, the public transportation there SUCKS is is NOT convenient in any way shape or form. people USE their cars because of this. I think my argument still stands. If the train is being proposed as a way to get commuters off of the highway than i think that is false advertisement. Commuters will generally not be using rental cars, ( except by sudden necessity - and then it would not be off of a MagLev commute, it would most likely be a replacement for their normal car) going to the airport on a daily basis - except those that may work there, etc. the point is that people are VERY hesitant to go out of their way, take extra time,(and connecting to busses DOES take time) just to take a cool train. I am for the longer routes, i.e. the las Vegas O.C. one, but I think the inner city plan needs to be reexamined, it is foolish to impliment a plan like this if the rest of the connecting, and fairly foundational in this case, elements are not all in order.

[Willie Green]

Quick question - is there a map with the proposed stops in LA anywhere? - it would possibly help your case because I am from LA, the public transportation there SUCKS is is NOT convenient in any way shape or form.

Yes, as mentioned in the article, additional information is available at www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov. As the project is still in the planning stages, the proposed stops should be considered as preliminary and subject to revision as the planning is refined and finalized. It would defininitely help your case if you familiarized yourself with the proposal rather than embarking on an uninformed knee-jerk rant.

[Willie Green]

If they want to build above existing roadways, why not simply build a double-decker freeway?

Because a multi-laned double-decker freeway would be a LOT bigger/wider and more expensive to build than the narrow guideway that would be provided for Maglev. Furthermore, additional freeway lanes provide no remedy for traffic congestion, and actually aggravate the situation by funneling even MORE cars into dense urban areas where parking is limited and connecting roadways cannot be widened.

[Frankss]

This magnet train/track cost 3 times the amount of a regular train, it also uses triple the energy of a regular train. It is not efficient.

[Willie Green]

Your "facts" are also both incorrect and unsupported.
Get off your lazy butt and post some credible information.
Nobody comes to FreeRepublic to read fictitious "information" that you simply make-up on the spur of the moment.

[heleny]

a multi-laned double-decker freeway would be a LOT bigger/wider and more expensive to build than the narrow guideway that would be provided for Maglev.

I actually meant a single lane (or even one in each direction), fully knowing that it would be more economical per lane to build a wider freeway, since it would be more similar in size to an elevated Maglev railway. It would carry far more people than Maglev, monorail, or any other train.

additional freeway lanes provide no remedy for traffic congestion, and actually aggravate the situation by funneling even MORE cars into dense urban areas where parking is limited and connecting roadways cannot be widened.

If Maglev carried people in any significant numbers, it would cause the same problem. After all, people have to get to the Maglev stations, which hopefully would be in dense urban areas to attract enough riders (as opposed to being a few miles away from them, like some Amtrak stations in SoCal).

Amtrak currently has a problem with limited parking; occasionally, there are few or no unoccupied parking spaces available at the stations, but many of those same stations do not have enough traffic to support a bus system convenient enough for most riders. A few hundred parking spaces at most takes a few hundred cars off the roads. An extra freeway lane keeps many thousands of cars out of the other lanes.

If people wanted to ride the Maglev to its destinations, a dedicated express lane could accommodate those same people without congesting the rest of the freeway.

Also, a freeway is less affected by various union actions that disrupt public transportation every year or two.

[Willie Green]

I actually meant a single lane (or even one in each direction), fully knowing that it would be more economical per lane to build a wider freeway, since it would be more similar in size to an elevated Maglev railway

Well, there's no technological reason why you can't build a single, elevated highway lane if you're crazy enough to want to. Cars can't travel very fast on such a narrow structure, and you certainly won't approach 300 mph like Maglev. So your single lane won't handle anywhere near as many passengers as Maglev, especially if trying to accommodate vehicles going in opposite directions on an alternating shedule. So then your stuck with the much higher cost of building multiple lanes to match Maglev's capacity, but you still haven't matched Maglev's speed. Nope, an elevated freeway is no match.