Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's pretty cool, you seem to have done quite a bit of homework. I am an unapologetic transit geek so if you have any info resources with more info about the viability of maglev as an urban rail solution I'd love to check it out.
This may sound like a silly notion, but rather than debate the theory of what kind of system might be best, how about examining other cities that have recently opened mass transit systems? I was thinking of Portland, Oregon, which recently inaugurated both the MAX light rail line (since expanded) and a small but popular streetcar system.
Lets not fred. Maglev is a serious solution, not just for the economy but for the environment and simply a faster transportation option. Check it out: index . We know what other cities are implementing. Its all the same: a light rail system that goes slower than cars, needs to be heavily subsidized, and serves a limited corridor. Its time to step into the 21st century.
Maybe it's best dealt with on a case-by-case basis but just don't see TriMet riders trading in a great light rail system like the MAX for a maglev that stops maybe a quarter as often and requires local bus transfers to get exactly where you're going.
If you're assuming that urban density is dead in the Capital Region and everyone's trying to get from Clifton Park to Crossgates Mall, then sure, you can throw light rail out the window here. I would probably even agree with that. But it's not obsolete in cities that are well laid out to support medium-density transit.
I'm simply advocating for a system that people will use regardless of gas prices. If you can provide a transit system that will take you to work faster than a car possibly could, people will take that option. The major employers of the capital district happen to be located along a corridor which could easily be served by maglev. And you say stops 4x that of maglev? That will take so much more time than the maglev. Another huge consideration is the cost. Light rail will always have to be subsidized, becuase there's no way people will pay more than the cost of a car to ride a street car which is going to take substantially longer. And light rail would serve which corridor--route 5 between albany and schenectady? The maglev would serve glens falls, saratoga, clifton park, schenectady, the airport, albany and the train staion. This would grab so much of a larger share of the commuters in the CD. Yes, it would cost some money to build, to the tune of 15-20 million a mile. But the elevated structure means few right-of-way issues along the entire route, and you can charge an amount per trip that would at the same time be less than the price of gas and at a rate that would be extremely profitable. If the government were to invest in this, they could make every penny they spent back within a few years and then have revenue to build more of this amazing infrastructure, out to troy and amsterdam. I am advocating for better, faster, much more energy efficient transportation. I don't see why you wouldn't want the same. Light rail will be slow, serve a limited corridor, and cost us, the taxpayers, money for as long as its in operation. And the last thing our economy needs is more tax. One other consideration: if you built maglev, you can bet it would generate so much interest among new companies (especially to develop in places like luther forest, which would be right along the corridor); much more than your old fashioned, slow and expensive light rail.
Well of course light rail takes more time than maglev, it's not meant to serve the same kind of population. Then again, nothing takes less time than an airplane, so let's cluster people around airports and let them fly to work every day! I'm advocating for a low-density system like your maglev in low-density areas, and high-density (yes, slower) transit in high density areas. That means yes I agree with you about maybe maglev in the CR but I still like light rail elsewhere where it makes sense. That's all.
Then again, nothing takes less time than an airplane, so let's cluster people around airports and let them fly to work every day!
As a matter of fact that is wrong. Maglev will get people to work faster than an airplane given the commuting distances. Given the population distribution of the CD, a maglev system would be effective for most commuters, whereas the light rail would serve just a single corridor. I am not against the light rail, but I don't see its benefits over a bus system serving a maglev system. 4 or 5 stops in schenectady would be entirely adequate for a maglev train to run local or express stops, and serve key neighborhoods like central state, the neighborhood around the ALCO site and woodlawn while going to virtually all the jobs in downtown, GE, and albany. Busses could take people to the stations that don't live directly adjacent to them. I'm simply unclear the extent of the advantages light rail has over bus, and compared to maglev light rail uses 70 percent more energy, and has higher operating costs. I'm not hating on light rail because I understand thats what this city was built around. But to compete with cars, we need a system that will simply go faster. That's the bottom line when commuting to work. I beleive that maglev should be the priority, and that could generate revenue for whichever entity that operates to expand the maglev system and perhaps light rail lines, perhaps on the route 5 corridor. But I would say that is secondary to maglev.
Light rail is not the most effective system for transportation. Mass transit does have to be implemented for capital district's cities to support the density of population they once had (when they developed around the trolley) but today its simply a worse option than the automobile, because it goes slower. I don't see why maglev isn't being discussed; its not that expensive (american maglev builds it for under 20 million a mile) and it can go way faster than you can legally drive you car.
I think every single city should make light rail mandatory because it reduces traffic and emissions and the dependency on foreign oil. The problem is it tends to get very political with politicians appeasement effecting the ultimate effectiveness of the project. The biggest issue tends to be acquiring right away for the tracks. Nobody ever agrees.
We've had light fail - er rail - in Sacramento for about two decades. It is a colossal failure. Other than providing a highly subsidized ride to downtown Sac for gov't workers, it functions the rest of the day as Gang Banger Transportation Deluxe. I've rode it some; enough to know that certain times of day it certainly does not feel safe to be on there and trains are often late, broken or dirty.
In another 20 years, we will have practical fuel cell vehicles and outside of megacities there will be no need to cram people onto buses and trains to "save the environment."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm advocating for a low-density system like your maglev in low-density areas, and high-density (yes, slower) transit in high density areas. That means yes I agree with you about maybe maglev in the CR but I still like light rail elsewhere where it makes sense. That's all.
