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 don't know why it has to be maglev, though. I suppose if your goal is not just better transport but to kindle a new industry, then maglev would be the choice. But that sort of thing is going to cost quite a lot more, like multiple times more I would think. If the goal is simply to have rapid rail-like transport, then there are existing high-speed rail setups that have already been deployed in various places in the world. Because they are already in existence, the supporting systems don't have to be created almost from scratch. (Japan is apparently close to doing more significant deployment of maglev in their system after some 10+ years of testing.) Europe and Japan for example have large existing networks of 200mph+ rail that have been operating for years, or, perhaps counting a bit lower speeds, decades. I understand the desire to leapfrog what may eventually be seen as outmoded tech (rails and wheels) but sometimes it's more practical not to. Of course the rail carries with it most of the same other problems, like new rights of way, etc.
It's worth noting that Steelton, PA is home to one of only two steel rail manufacturers in the US so it's not like PA wouldn't benefit from rails being laid. I just don't get this and it's even worse if this comes at the expense of the $28 million requested for engineering work to remove the remaining Keystone grade crossings and lay a third express track nearly to Lancaster. It's long been a question whether this would be consultant feed or real money for upgrading our rail network. was this grant from the $8bn in HSR funds?
Sure. But look at the actual capital costs. We're talking over a billion dollars to get to downtown; $3.75 billion to get to Greensburg. What do you think a Pittsburgh-Philadephia run would cost? Even if we assume that East of the Blue Mountains will be relatively cheap considering the cost of Pittsburgh to Carlisle, PA, we're still talking about well over $200 billion dollars to connect Pittsburgh to Philly.
Consider that this is less that the entire pricetag to bring HSR to all existing national passenger rail lines.
What is the justification? Where is this even reasonable?
And Pittsburgh Airport to Greensburg? Wouldn't Orlando Airport to Disney World make a lot more sense in terms of actual passenger traffic?
There is no economic or technical justification for this expenditure. It's going to make a few people rich at the expense of the taxpayers. This "study" is not going to create jobs and it isn't going to revitalize Pittsburgh.
. It's going to make a few people rich at the expense of the taxpayers. This "study" is not going to create jobs and it isn't going to revitalize Pittsburgh.
No. This is a ridiculous waste of money (although a pittance compared to the $450 million spent on the North Shore Connector). You need new rights of way, you can't use existing equipment, no grade crossings, etc.
As for a demonstration, there already is one, in Shanghai. And after building it, the Chinese (who have a lot more money to spend on infrastructure than we do), decided to use conventional HSR to connect Bejing to Shanghai, which says alot.
Well that says it all right there, how could anyone hope for this to work in a much much less populated area? Sounds like another crazy idea to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't this money be much more useful if it went toward initiating more feasible rail projects in Pittsburgh?
Show the feds a shiny new idea and they will throw money at it regardless of how feasible it is to implement, i guess.
So before I do this I want to be absolutely clear I have very substantive doubts about the merits of this plan. But here are a few points in its favor:
(1) From a purely Pittsburgh-centric perspective, even if it is on balance a waste of state and federal resources, it could be good for the region. The technology does in fact work, and it is considerably cheaper to operate than alternative technologies. So if the state and feds are basically willing to give you such a system, it may be a very nice, if unwise, gift.
(2) Maglev does have potential that steel-wheel does not. Again, I very much agree with the point that since top speeds are comparable right now and steel-wheel is backwards compatible, the case for incremental maglev is very weak. On the other hand, maglev has the potential to meet or substantially exceed airplane speeds at much higher energy efficiencies if you run it in evacuated tubes, so it is possible that investing in maglev now will set the stage for incremental adoption of truly revolutionary technologies in the future.
(3) So the basic idea behind this project is to test out the concept for possible wider adoption. And one of the reasons Pittsburgh has made it this far in a competitive process is that it actually presents a lot of challenges for rail, mostly due to local topography. That may sound strange, but the idea is that if you are really trying to put the concept to a test, you need to test it in some of the more adverse conditions, not just the more favorable. For example, one of the claims made in favor of maglev over steel wheel is that it can handle climbing hills better, which can actually reduce construction costs in hilly terrain. This is a good place to test that claim.
(4) To answer a specific question, for a stretch as long as Pittsburgh to Philly, the high estimate for costs per mile would be something like $100 million. So you are talking $30 billion, give or take. It could also be less if you got some scale efficiencies. Or more if the technology didn't work as expected. These are things that this sort of pilot program would be trying to determine.
(1) From a purely Pittsburgh-centric perspective, even if it is on balance a waste of state and federal resources, it could be good for the region.
$28 million for a study? What has Maglev, Inc. been doing for the last 10 years besides lobbying? How many local jobs are going to be created with this money?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
(2) On the other hand, maglev has the potential to meet or substantially exceed airplane speeds at much higher energy efficiencies if you run it in evacuated tubes, so it is possible that investing in maglev now will set the stage for incremental adoption of truly revolutionary technologies in the future.
But why compete with airplanes? HSRs niche is not the long hauls but intermediate distances. The Shanghai trip is about 18 miles and takes about 7-8 minutes. It take almost four minutes for the train to reach top speed at which point it has to start slowing. Pittsburgh Airport to Greensburg is about 40 miles but you'd have a stop in the city, itself, so for practical purposes, Maglev would never reach top speed at any point along the line.
In Shanghai, ridership is about 20%. You'd be lucky to get that on a Pittsburgh to Greensburg route.
We already have airports and heavy rail. It makes more sense to look at how to leverage our existing technology in more efficient ways that to look at spending billions more on a competitive technology which would require a whole new infrastructure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTH
(3) So the basic idea behind this project is to test out the concept for possible wider adoption. And one of the reasons Pittsburgh has made it this far in a competitive process is that it actually presents a lot of challenges for rail, mostly due to local topography. That may sound strange, but the idea is that if you are really trying to put the concept to a test, you need to test it in some of the more adverse conditions, not just the more favorable. For example, one of the claims made in favor of maglev over steel wheel is that it can handle climbing hills better, which can actually reduce construction costs in hilly terrain. This is a good place to test that claim.
The FRA estimates the maximum grade for MAGLEV at 10%. That's better than TGV but still far less than the grade of many of Pittsburghs surrounding hills. You are either going to need tunnels or you're going to need most of the trip to be via elevated tracks.
(4) To answer a specific question, for a stretch as long as Pittsburgh to Philly, the high estimate for costs per mile would be something like $100 million. So you are talking $30 billion, give or take.
Shanghai cost about $70 million per mile but there is no guarantee that steel and concrete prices will remain stable once the world economy recovers. If we see the kind of spike in demand that we did a few years ago, the costs could be considerably higher.
There are other problems as well. The average tolerable breaking force is about 1/8 Gs for transportation in which people could be standing. More than that and riders become uncomfortable. About 1/2 Gs is typical for vehicles where passengers must remain seated. If you are going to allow for express or limited trains, you need a separate platform for boarding and detraining. At 100 MPH, that means about an extra 1000 feet of track for stopping. At 300 MPH, you need 9 times that or about 9000 extra feet per track. Think about the cost not only of construction, but of purchasing the right of way in the middle of downtown.
Ask yourself, if Maglev is such a good option, why has China, which has the only operating commercial Maglev system for passenger use, decided to go back to HSR for intercity passenger transport?
I have to say I'm surprised that it would ONLY be $30 bn. I'd be surprised if it made it downtown. like Shanghai, it would probably end in say, West Philly, and you'd have to transfer to commuter trains or a new metro. Same in Pittsburgh. I would imagine getting into the city center (by tunnel) would most likely be quite expensive (though Philly does have an abandoned rail tunnel going into its city center though you'd need a tunnel under the schuylkill to reach it). From a common sense perspective, convention seems to make the most sense as yone can upgrade hte current route, then add a high speed segment later, and share track east of Harrisburg for both services (this is pretty much how Europe built their networks). The study, I think, should go right for the gold and study Philly to Pittsburgh so we can compare HSR vs MagLev directly.
$28 million for a study? What has Maglev, Inc. been doing for the last 10 years besides lobbying? How many local jobs are going to be created with this money?
I was referring to the actual project, not the $28 million. But the $28 million is going for studies and pre-engineering to be conducted by Maglev Inc. in McKeesport, so that will in fact cycle a lot of funds into the local economy.
Quote:
But why compete with airplanes? HSRs niche is not the long hauls but intermediate distances.
It is true that conventional HSR cannot compete with airplanes for longer distances. But maglev trains in evacuated tunnels could potentially travel at speeds of up to 5000 MPH (not a typo), and easily beat airplanes on energy costs as well, and do it with electricity as opposed to liquid fuels. And that doesn't really require much in the way of additional technology, although of course it would take a big capital investment. But part of the point I was making is that if you started with a decent conventional maglev system, you could then incrementally add evacuated tunnels to the system.
Quote:
We already have airports and heavy rail. It makes more sense to look at how to leverage our existing technology in more efficient ways that to look at spending billions more on a competitive technology which would require a whole new infrastructure.
As I have noted before, I don't really disagree with your conclusion about priorities in a world of limited funding for rail projects. But I think it is important to understand we are really looking at two entirely different possible approaches to future transportation: one is an incremental approach requiring backwards compatibility, and the other is a transformative approach requiring forwards compatibility. And so if the funding was there for a transformative approach--and I am not saying it is, but if it was--then I think it would be worth exploring.
Quote:
The FRA estimates the maximum grade for MAGLEV at 10%. That's better than TGV but still far less than the grade of many of Pittsburghs surrounding hills. You are either going to need tunnels or you're going to need most of the trip to be via elevated tracks.
Again, this is the sort of thing a pilot program would be studying, and why if you are going to have such a pilot program, it makes some sense to do it in a place like Pittsburgh where you have these challenges.
Quote:
This might be a more cost effective alternative.
That certainly seems like an interesting idea.
Quote:
Shanghai cost about $70 million per mile but there is no guarantee that steel and concrete prices will remain stable once the world economy recovers. If we see the kind of spike in demand that we did a few years ago, the costs could be considerably higher.
On the other hand, you would expect scale efficiencies if you really committed to building a 300 mile line. But again this is all stuff a pilot program would be trying to nail down a little better--$100 million per mile is right now the standard high end estimate for maglev, but we would obviously like to get a much better idea of the likely costs before committing to a full scale intercity system.
Quote:
Ask yourself, if Maglev is such a good option, why has China, which has the only operating commercial Maglev system for passenger use, decided to go back to HSR for intercity passenger transport?
China has been back and forth on whether they want to extend the Shanghai maglev line to Hangzhou, but I think the general answer is that China recognizes their funding is still limited relative to the developed world, and they are better off trying to get their transportation system up to contemporary standards quickly as opposed to trying to leapfrog the developed world. Which again may make perfect sense in the U.S. as well, since although we are a developed country, we have an antiquated passenger rail system and it will take a significant investment just to get it up to contemporary standards.
On the other hand, if the political will existed, we could in fact afford to actually leap ahead of current transportation standards. I know this isn't a thought that people are accustomed to these days--that the U.S. would lead, as opposed to follow, the rest of the developed world when it comes to transportation--but it is something we have actually done in the past.
Anyway, as noted I'm really just playing devil's advocate (or maglev's advocate) here. I just thought it was worth fleshing out the arguments.
I have to say I'm surprised that it would ONLY be $30 bn. I'd be surprised if it made it downtown. like Shanghai, it would probably end in say, West Philly, and you'd have to transfer to commuter trains or a new metro. Same in Pittsburgh. I would imagine getting into the city center (by tunnel) would most likely be quite expensive (though Philly does have an abandoned rail tunnel going into its city center though you'd need a tunnel under the schuylkill to reach it).
In Pittsburgh the current plan would be to use a new bridge across the Mon to get into Downtown, which would be expensive but not crazily so. Our Downtown is actually relatively easy to reach precisely because you can come along the rivers, which basically pave a way through what would be builtup land in most cities, and a lot of the riverfront is still underutilized former industrial space. So the current plan has the route coming in along the Ohio, crossing a new bridge over the Mon, crossing Downtown with a stop (and here we benefit from a compact Downtown), then heading back out along the Allegheny.
On the other hand, I have no idea what they would do in Philly. But that is part of why the Pittsburgh part is in contention for the pilot program, as opposed to the Philly part.
Quote:
From a common sense perspective, convention seems to make the most sense as yone can upgrade hte current route, then add a high speed segment later, and share track east of Harrisburg for both services (this is pretty much how Europe built their networks). The study, I think, should go right for the gold and study Philly to Pittsburgh so we can compare HSR vs MagLev directly.
This is basically what I was discussing with Joe. I also believe this is likely the right approach--incremental improvements requiring backwards compatibility. But I also recognize I believe that because I don't think the funding will be there for a more transformative approach. If, however, you gave me a big budget--say $1 trillion over ten years--I might well be tempted to swing for the fences and go with a forwards compatible approach like maglev.
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.
