This may be an unpopular diary to those who do not read it carefully. But for those who take the time to understand my points, I think it will strike a chord of common sense. As many of you are aware, Bobby Jindal used part of his recently televised debacle to dismiss volcanic monitoring and maglev trains all in one breath. While he earned deserved derision for misunderstanding the importance of volcanic monitoring, he was actually quite correct that money spent on large maglev train projects is money not well spent.
Jindal infamously said:
While some of the projects in the bill make sense, their legislation is larded with wasteful spending. It includes $300 million to buy new cars for the government, $8 billion for high-speed rail projects, such as a "magnetic levitation" line from Las Vegas to Disneyland, and $140 million for something called "volcano monitoring." Instead of monitoring volcanoes, what Congress should be monitoring is the eruption of spending in Washington, D.C.
Jindal, however foolish he is, was correct in stating that a regional maglev project is wasteful spending. Fortunately, the maglev example given by Jindal was fictitious; it is not currently designed or currently proposed for construction. Yet despite the straw-man nature of Jindal's maglev scenario, many progressives have reflexively jumped to the defense of maglev. I find this to be a bit premature, and I want people to understand why this is an issue that we should just let drop.
Maglev is a promising and enticing technology that would make trans-national rail travel at tremendous speeds (300 mph) a reality. But proposing the design and construction of any full-scale maglev system would NOT be undertaken in the near future for several compelling reasons:
SPEED
Maglev travels faster than conventional high speed rail (HSR), but by how much? Proponents of maglev often use the figure of 300 mph. But conventional high speed rail can readily achieve speeds of 125-150 mph and faster. The conventional HSR French TGV recently establish a test trial record of 320 mph, but that is not replicable for normal passenger service. The conventional HSR Beijing-Tianjin Intercity Rail system regularly runs at >200 mph on certain stretches. So certainly it is feasible to create a system that regularly runs at 150-200 mph. Implementing 150-200 mph conventional rail service would turn a 5 hr car trip into a 2-3hr train trip, and would be time competitive with many regional air travel trips wherever a layover and plane change is involved (which is quite often these days).
COST
Maglev requires incredible precision in the fabrication and installation of the rails, with very tight tolerances. Because of this, the infrastructure is much more expensive than conventional high-speed rail (exactly how much depends on many factors). Would you be willing to spend 2Xor 3X as much money (or more) to turn your 2-3 hr train ride into a 1.5 hr maglev ride? I wouldn't.
DEDICATED RIGHTS OF WAY
It is tempting to be attracted to maglev because it eliminates one of the greatest impediments to existing American rail service; the fact that Amtrak shares (and is subservient on) freight company owned rails everywhere but the dedicated Acela sections of the Northeast Corridor. Maglev would be a dedicated system, eliminating the low-speed obstruction of freight trains. But here's the thing... conventional HSR would accomplish the same thing with its own dedicated right of way. Having dedicated tracks is not a unique selling point for maglev.
THERE IS NO ESTABLISHED STANDARD
Now listen up, because this is the big one. There are up to three different propulsion technologies and rail styles for maglev. A nice compilation of the technologies can be found on Wikipedia:
There are three primary types of maglev technology:
- Electromagnetic suspension (EMS) uses the attractive magnetic force of a magnet beneath a rail to lift the train up.
- Electrodynamic suspension (EDS) uses a repulsive force between two magnetic fields to push the train away from the rail.
- Stabilized permanent magnet suspension (SPM) uses opposing arrays of permanent magnets to levitate the train above the rail.
Suppose we spend a few billion dollars building three different regional maglev systems, but they use different maglev technologies? In that scenario, we will have let haste destroy all hopes of an integrated nationwide maglev system. Any design or construction of a regional maglev system must be deferred until a federal panel establishes a detailed and comprehensive maglev standard of design.
BEFORE YOU CRUCIFY ME...
So there you have it; my argument against anyone proposing any regional high speed maglev system. Please don't misinterpret this as a call to abandon maglev technology. I think we should establish a Presidential blue ribbon panel to oversee an R&D strategy and technology development. Real-world performance data could be obtained from small test systems (test tracks, or possibly stand-alone urban systems). Once we have established which technological approach is superior, we would then evaluate the financial costs, and do a cost-benefit analysis to determine which technology approach is the most practical. Then, we can establish specific national standards for any government-funded maglev projects to ensure that regional projects can someday be tied together into a seamless system. Then, and only then, should government spending be allocated to the design and construction of regional systems. In other words, it is a long long process.
So drop the maglev issue folks, and settle on conventional high-speed rail in crucial areas where it can thrive (California, Great Lakes region, Florida, Northeast, etc.), with the long-term goal of a nationwide high speed system. Maglev should definitely be an R&D focus, but it doesn't factor into a transportation strategy in the next few decades. And switching our infrastructure from HSR to maglev in a few decades wouldn't actually waste as much money as you might think. The vast majority of infrastructure cost for HSR construction goes into obtaining, engineering, and building the rail right-of-way, tunnels, bridges, and crossings; not the rails or trains themselves. This right-of-way portion of the system is reusable in a maglev system if designed for high enough speeds. Furthermore, after 20-30 years the conventional HSR trains will be near the end of their service life, and the steel rails can be recycled if torn up. This, to me, is the most sane approach for a national rail strategy and gets us the biggest bang for our buck.