Maglev Inic bankrupt. (Pittsburgh, McKeesport, Greensburg: costs, centers, airport)

[MathmanMathman]

Maglev Inc is liquidating its assests

Maglev Inc. assets to be auctioned off next month

Guess it wasn't to be for McKeesport. Potentially it could have made Pittsburgh Maglev Central in North America. But so far Maglev's promise looks increasingly similar to the Monorail episode of The Simpsons.


The Simpsons Monorail song (High Quality) - YouTube

It's a shame in one way though, the line was to go from the airport to Pittsburgh to Greensburg. A route Pittsburgh could use.

[BrianTH]

If we had committed to doing an Eisenhower-style investment in HSR, I still think going with Maglev might have been a good idea.

But since we are going with the incremental approach (and even that is running into Culture Warrior opposition), it wasn't to be.

[WhoIsStanwix?]

Not that this is at all related to maglev, but does anyone think this is a cool idea/would it do well anywhere in Pittsburgh?

BetterCampus - a Personal Rapid Transit application

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

If we had committed to doing an Eisenhower-style investment in HSR, I still think going with Maglev might have been a good idea.

But since we are going with the incremental approach (and even that is running into Culture Warrior opposition), it wasn't to be.

Throwing ourselves into a large scale project of this technology would be a much larger gamble than the Pittsburgh airport expansion.

I saw this idea as more like commuter rail rather than inter-city. My hope was for Maglev providing a connection of Allegheny and the outer counties to Pittsburgh and the airport.

I don't think interstate HSR via more conventional rail or Maglev has anywhere the economic payback as the interstate highway system did. Trains are best at lugging lots of stuff. And given its lackluster adoption around the world, I have doubts about Maglev. Maglev might work better for commuter rail than interstate.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by WhoIsStanwix?

Not that this is at all related to maglev, but does anyone think this is a cool idea/would it do well anywhere in Pittsburgh.

I'm a little skeptical of rail-based PRT, but you could maybe do a version with Google-style automated vehicles that could be very successful.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

Throwing ourselves into a large scale project of this technology would be a much larger gamble than the Pittsburgh airport expansion.

Well, yes and no. Of course I am talking about a national HSR project that would cost many times more than the Pittsburgh airport expansion. On the other hand, the fundamental risk I identified with the Pittsburgh airport expansion, which in fact came to pass, is that it was relying on non-local demand that could easily be switched to other markets. In contrast, a national HSR project would in fact be designed to meet local demand for transportation services in all the relevant markets.

That's why a better analogy is something like the Eisenhower interstate system.

I saw this idea as more like commuter rail rather than inter-city. My hope was for Maglev providing a connection of Allegheny and the outer counties to Pittsburgh and the airport.

But fundamentally that is not a natural use of Maglev. The reason it took that form is that long ago, the feds decided they would fund exploration of a pilot Maglev project, but they wanted it to be useful even if it was never adopted on a full scale. In this case, the idea was eventually this would become part of a line from Philly to points west.

I don't think interstate HSR via more conventional rail or Maglev has anywhere the economic payback as the interstate highway system did. Trains are best at lugging lots of stuff.

Trains are also better at "lugging" people between large urban centers at medium distances than either cars or airplanes. And eventually, Maglev trains running in vacuum tubes could beat airplanes at any distance.

And given its lackluster adoption around the world, I have doubts about Maglev. Maglev might work better for commuter rail than interstate.

The primary reason Maglev hasn't gone much of anywhere in other countries so far is that it isn't backwards compatible with steel-wheel train systems. So if you are already heavily invested in steel-wheel trains for passenger service, it makes some sense to focus on compatible HSR technologies.

Ironically, the fact that the U.S. passenger train system has been neglected for so long means that we don't have as much sunk costs to worry about, and therefore we are uniquely positioned to leap to a new, better technology, which may also be more forwards compatible.

However, that would take spending a good chunk of money relatively quickly so we could launch the core of our new Maglev system on a reasonable schedule. Instead, it appears we are going to only spend a little on HSR relatively slowly, which means we are going to trace behind the passenger rail path set by other countries, rather than leaping ahead.

Oh well.

[Craziaskowboi]

Maglev only makes sense between cities. And even then, it has to figure out how to become cost-effective.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Gnutella

Maglev only makes sense between cities. And even then, it has to figure out how to become cost-effective.

I think if you did it at full scale it could be less expensive than conventional HSR, both because of increased production efficiencies and because it allows for better routing in topographically-challenging or densely-developed areas.

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Well, yes and no. Of course I am talking about a national HSR project that would cost many times more than the Pittsburgh airport expansion. On the other hand, the fundamental risk I identified with the Pittsburgh airport expansion, which in fact came to pass, is that it was relying on non-local demand that could easily be switched to other markets. In contrast, a national HSR project would in fact be designed to meet local demand for transportation services in all the relevant markets.

You prognosticated this or was it a postmortem?

That's why a better analogy is something like the Eisenhower interstate system.

But that would be making a commitment to building a system of uncertain popularity and efficacy. The American passenger rail system essentially died and is only now being kept on life-support with Amtrak. So we want to go headlong with an updated technology to revive a dead system with one that isn't even used as an intercity transport system? We were much surer of the interstate highway system than this.

But fundamentally that is not a natural use of Maglev. The reason it took that form is that long ago, the feds decided they would fund exploration of a pilot Maglev project, but they wanted it to be useful even if it was never adopted on a full scale. In this case, the idea was eventually this would become part of a line from Philly to points west.

So far though Maglev is finding life by moving people between Shanghai and its airport (19 miles) and an urban line in Japan. Way too early to plan for an intercity system. And besides, one advantage of Maglev is that it can take on steeper gradients than conventional rail so Pittsburgh would have been a good test case and its use would have been in line with what has been done so far.

Trains are also better at "lugging" people between large urban centers at medium distances than either cars or airplanes. And eventually, Maglev trains running in vacuum tubes could beat airplanes at any distance.

I think you've been reading too many Popular Mechanics. Next is underwater cities where we have our own personal submarines that can surface and fly? Trains lugging stuff has been a huge success so far but I can't say the same for passenger rail and attaining those high speeds will eat into the savings. Other places like Europe enjoy a density that makes passenger rail work but it's just not the same here.

The primary reason Maglev hasn't gone much of anywhere in other countries so far is that it isn't backwards compatible with steel-wheel train systems. So if you are already heavily invested in steel-wheel trains for passenger service, it makes some sense to focus on compatible HSR technologies.

Ironically, the fact that the U.S. passenger train system has been neglected for so long means that we don't have as much sunk costs to worry about, and therefore we are uniquely positioned to leap to a new, better technology, which may also be more forwards compatible.

It's probably best to stick with the technology the rest of the world is using. The few commercial systems running now don't seem to be screaming for a change. At this point, if we use Maglev at all, it should be commuter rail and if it matures, then consider intercity.

However, that would take spending a good chunk of money relatively quickly so we could launch the core of our new Maglev system on a reasonable schedule. Instead, it appears we are going to only spend a little on HSR relatively slowly, which means we are going to trace behind the passenger rail path set by other countries, rather than leaping ahead.

This technology isn't moving that fast despite the Germans and Japanese pushing the research. The jet age was radical and changed the way we traveled in less than two decades. Maglev's slow adoption is not encouraging.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

You prognosticated this or was it a postmortem?

Sorry, that was 100% hindsight. I consider it a lesson learned.

But that would be making a commitment to building a system of uncertain popularity and efficacy.

Eh, under what circumstances HSR effectively competes for market share is very well studied (and the results utterly unsurprising). And although we Americans have barely dabbled with it via Acela, that particular datapoint fits the model.

So far though Maglev is finding life by moving people between Shanghai and its airport (19 miles) and an urban line in Japan.

Those are also effectively pilot programs.

And besides, one advantage of Maglev is that it can take on steeper gradients than conventional rail so Pittsburgh would have been a good test case

Right, but that wasn't the end game--it was specifically intended as a pilot pogram for an intercity line.

Trains lugging stuff has been a huge success so far but I can't say the same for passenger rail

Passenger rail was a great success here for a long time, and it has continued to succeed in countries where it has been invested in and kept technologically current. You can't dump almost all your investments in planes and cars, and mostly misuse the little you invest in passenger rail, and expect passenger rail to thrive.

Other places like Europe enjoy a density that makes passenger rail work but it's just not the same here.

That's a complete myth. The key factor for HSR demand is to have sufficiently large urbanized areas the right range of distances apart. We have plenty of such city pairs that could be put together into HSR networks.

Looking at density isn't even asking the right question, and in any event we have large areas that have densities equivalent to countries where HSR has succeeded.

It's probably best to stick with the technology the rest of the world is using.

That's not the attitude that made this country great. A very large factor in American exceptionalism has been staying ahead on technology.

This technology isn't moving that fast despite the Germans and Japanese pushing the research. The jet age was radical and changed the way we traveled in less than two decades. Maglev's slow adoption is not encouraging.

Technological issues aren't what is holding back Maglev. It is the lack of backwards compatibility--a problem which you are indirectly pointing out we really don't have.