Maglev gets funds, good idea? (Philadelphia, Pittsburgh: hotel, construction, maintenance)

[pman]

He is replete with dates when federal legislation offered funding promises and the details that derailed them. Now, after a three-year lull in Washington, Gurney sees potential in a recent announcement from the Federal Railroad Administration, which has $45 million to give to one or more of three eligible projects....ated and propelled by electromagnetic forces, has been around for half a century. Such technology is already in use in Japan, China and Germany, where vessels traveling upwards of 250 mph hover above a magnetic strip...Pittsburgh vision of a 54-mile route stretching from the airport to Downtown to Monroeville and Greensburg...“The last formal number we put together in 2003 money was $3.7 billion,” he said. “It certainly is more today.”
Indeed, the price of steel has tripled within the past five years...The project has the full support of Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, whose Web site addresses his vision of a high-speed maglev network one day connecting Philadelphia to Pittsburgh in under two hours.

http://pittsburgh.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/stories/2008/11/03/story13.html?b=1225688400^1726238

PA and Amtrak recently plunked $145 million in the Keystone Corridor Upgrade. Sure, it still takes 95 minutes from Harrisburg to Philly (although it's a lot more comfortable than it used to be), but it actually got built and trains are running. Ridership is, I believe, up over 50% in the nearly two years since the service was relaunched. This plan wants to spend $45 million just on studying it. Would it be better spent on upgrading the current slow train to Pittsburgh? Should we take a cue from China who recently opted for conventional HSR to build out their network? the advantage of convention is this: you can upgrade the current line then add high speed segments as you have the money...or where feasible. Conventional HSR can get on a high speed segment then switch to regular track much like local and high speed roads. It seems the politicians always side with the pie in the sky options and we're stuck with things that never happen. thoughts?

[bbrian12]

extend the T through oakland
and finish the mon-fay expressway instead

[Geeo]

I actually drive to Harrisburg or Lancaster to get the train to Philadelphia. There is park and ride for $5 a day, and there are about 12 trains a day. They need to upgrade the service and electrify it west from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh. Maglev will not be built in our lifetime.

[Blackbeauty212]

I agree totally - PA needs a Philadelphia - KOP - Harrisburgh - Monroeville - Pittsburgh Train with REGULAR service, not twice a day Amtrak.

[johnnytang24]

I think it would be nice if it actually could happen in under 2 hours, but I don't see a train doing Pitt - Philly without making any stops. Assuming it makes a few stops, all the sudden the ride is 3-4 hours, plus 2-3 hours more to NYC. So in total, 6-7 hours. Another full day on the train. I'd still rather see a sleeper train from Pittsburgh to NYC. Add a couple of pay-per-use showers/commodes, and it'd be like spending the night in a traveling hotel room.

[FlyByNightRat]

Originally Posted by Blackbeauty212

I agree totally - PA needs a Philadelphia - KOP - Harrisburgh - Monroeville - Pittsburgh Train with REGULAR service, not twice a day Amtrak.

I agree with the concept, but lose the 19th century old technology. George Washington modernized the technology once. The Pennsylvanians can repeat the history with maglev. It's time to replace Amtrak line with maglev, starting with commuter line first. Freight line next. The same way John Stevens' invention replaced the canal system back in the 1800's.

[Drover]

No sense in reinventing the wheel if it still works. Conventional technology may not be as sexy as maglev, but it's still a hell of a lot more cost-effective.

[pman]

Originally Posted by johnnytang24

I think it would be nice if it actually could happen in under 2 hours, but I don't see a train doing Pitt - Philly without making any stops. Assuming it makes a few stops, all the sudden the ride is 3-4 hours, plus 2-3 hours more to NYC. So in total, 6-7 hours. Another full day on the train. I'd still rather see a sleeper train from Pittsburgh to NYC. Add a couple of pay-per-use showers/commodes, and it'd be like spending the night in a traveling hotel room.

It's 80 minutes from Philly to NYC, not 2-3 hours. actually, some of the acela trains make the trip in 65 minutes. Realistically, you could probably expect convention high speed rail to do the trip between Philly and Pitt in 2.5 hours. that means 3.5 hours. You might be able to run an express sipping 30th st via the Pittsburgh subway cutting off 20 min or so.
Also, Amtrk is not a technology, but a company owned by the government. In terms of technology, there's conventional rail (even there, there's room for speed improvements in our system), conventional high speed rail (most European trains running HSR run at 186 mph, some higher, the tech has been pushed by the French to 327 mph), and maglev. the first two are compatible while the third requires building out an entire system.

[Awesomo.2000]

The cost effectiveness of Maglev would pay itself off in the long run. It would be very high upfront cost, but the long term savings would be considerable, especailly with energy. Also it would be used much more because you couldn't get better efficient travel than a Maglev system.

As an engineer, we always need to tell clients about how they will save in the long term if they increase their upfront cost. It never works. As Americans we want the cheapest now, get our use out of it, and throw it away. We are a very large throw away society. Countries like Germany, and even Communist China will have Maglev systems throughout their country well before we ever do. We will always be using cars for long distance travel. Oh well.

I remember going to epcot as a kid and they had a future of America in the big space ball. It showed something like a maglev system going to city to city at hundreds of MPH. That view of American future is never going to happen. We are no longer a nation that pushes technological bounds anymore.

[pman]

Originally Posted by Awesomo.2000

The cost effectiveness of Maglev would pay itself off in the long run. It would be very high upfront cost, but the long term savings would be considerable, especailly with energy. Also it would be used much more because you couldn't get better efficient travel than a Maglev system.

maybe, maybe not. the logic of upgrading current infrastructure is to build support, or ridership. the second tier of high speed rail versus maglev is less clear cut.

French train broke the world speed record for conventional trains, reaching 357.2 mph as it whizzed down the tracks this morning in eastern France.

French train exceeds 357 mph, breaks speed record - On Deadline - USATODAY.com

the benefit of conventional HSR is that you don't need all the money upfront...
[quote] Maglev trains are not compatible with conventional track, and therefore require all new infrastructure for their entire route. By contrast conventional high speed trains such as the TGV are able to run at reduced speeds on existing rail infrastructure, thus reducing expenditure where new infrastructure would be particularly expensive (such as the final approaches to city terminals), or on extensions where traffic does not justify new infrastructure....[/quote

Originally Posted by Awesomo.2000

As an engineer, we always need to tell clients about how they will save in the long term if they increase their upfront cost. It never works. As Americans we want the cheapest now, get our use out of it, and throw it away. We are a very large throw away society. Countries like Germany, and even Communist China will have Maglev systems throughout their country well before we ever do. We will always be using cars for long distance travel. Oh well.

China aims to limit the cost of future construction extending the maglev line to approximately 200 million yuan (US$24.6 million) per kilometer.[15] These costs compare competitively with airport construction (e.g., Hong Kong Airport cost US$20 billion to build in 1998) and eight-lane Interstate highway systems that cost around US$50 million per mile (US$31 million per kilometer) in the US.
While high-speed maglevs are expensive to build, they are less expensive to operate and maintain than traditional high-speed trains, planes or intercity buses.[citation needed] Data from the Shanghai maglev project indicates that operation and maintenance costs are covered by the current relatively low volume of 7,000 passengers per day.[citation needed] Passenger volumes on the Pudong International Airport line are expected to rise dramatically once the line is extended from Longyang Road metro station all the way to Shanghai's downtown train depot.

Maglev (transport) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


on the other hand, china, which is nominally communist, has elected to build out a conventional high speed rail network rather than a mag leve network. it's nice to say we should build out an entire network, but where's the money? I'd also posit that the maglev proposal to the airport is ajoke. when america had a first class rail network, it was entirely private. the greatest passenger railroad around, the Pennsylvania, was allowed to die while Chrysler was bailed out.