Comments on: higher-speed trains? what a crock!

By: Michael Krueger

Michael Krueger — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 20:15:22 +0000

Maglev is to rail travel what the Concorde is to air travel: Yes, it is the fastest technology available, but it is also the biggest energy hog and it is not at all cost effective. There is a reason the Concorde is no longer flying, and it is the same reason we should not waste another dime of taxpayer money on maglev fantasies. Even supposedly “free” projects like the SCAG maglev have a cost, because the false hopes that they raise will prevent real, feasible, cost-effective projects from ever getting off the ground.

It bothers me to no end that proponents of technologies like maglev or monorail insist that proven technologies like steel wheels on steel rails are obsolete just because they were invented long ago. By that logic, the hovercraft should have completely replaced the wheeled automobile by now, because the wheel is such an old, outdated technology. Sometimes—not always, but sometimes—an “old” technology really is the best solution to a modern problem.

By: South Bay Resident

South Bay Resident — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 14:24:12 +0000

Back when BART (and Japan’s HSR system) was being designed, there was another subway being built. It was being built by the Philidelphia Port Authority Corporation (PATCO). This system was in many ways the anti-BART. Instead of trying to reinvent everything and usher in a new era of rapid transit, PATCO focused on cost control and using the best proven technologies of its day. The result was a system that broke even financially, moved lots of people and could be operated all night with a grand total of 2 people. Admittedly, the system is much smaller than BART at only 1/10th its length and only carrying a tenth of the number of people that BART carries, but the lesson is clear. You can build transit that works well if you focus on cost containment and using the best proven technology. This is where maglev fails. While there have been pretty cost-effective high speed rail lines, every maglev line ever built has been an expensive boondoggle. Given this state’s record of delivering cost-effective transit, do we really want another one? At least the CAHSRA picked the technology that is more likely to work.

By: Roadkill

Roadkill — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 18:43:01 +0000

What makes anyone think that American Maglev has $26 billion to spend on this? Has anyone checked them out?

SCAG has no significant power in southern California — they just think they do, and they don’t represent every municipality. The idea for moving containerized freight is a great one considering the incoming volume of it, but there are a number of proposals to lift it and carry it to the rail heads. The notion of moving passengers from the port has no importance as, excepting, the cruise ships, there aren’t any.

By: Guy Span

Guy Span — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 05:39:10 +0000

Time for a tiny history lesson. While the Bay Area was designing a state-of-the-art 45 MPH (average) speed, shiny new electric railway, Japan was designing a breathtaking 136 MPH electric railway. Set the way-back machine to 1957 and you will see how both got funded. They lied about the costs. But for both countries the benefits generally exceeded expectations, over time.

Nothing has changed since then. See Big Fat Lies at the following link:

http://baycrossings.com/dispnews.asp?id=399

The big, huge difference between Maglev and High-Speed Rail is the simple fact that High-Speed standard gauge rail can slow down and use existing terminals, even historic terminals (as in Europe) and Maglev must build brand new ones in an already crowded city center.

But whatever we decide to build, multiply the official construction estimates by 1.5 to 3 and divide the benefits by 2. It still may be beneficial, but we should be fully aware of the costs.

Guy Span