Could This Be The Future of Amtrak??

[IGoDwnTwn]

Sorry if this topic does not belong here. But with the government short changing Amtrak, maybe a totally new type of transportion is appropriate.

I've been doing alot of reading on the Maglev technology for the past few days. The US government has already alotted more funds towards this than what they grant Amtrak presently on a per-year basis.

How about DC to NY in under 45 minutes????

Read... http://www.maglevpa.com/

http://www.transrapid-usa.com/

http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/200

Here are some videos...make sure you click the English versions...Enjoy!!

http://www.transrapid.de/en/index.html

IGO

 

[Trogdor]

In my own personal opinion, this is just overpriced fantasy. Why don't we actually spend some money on a proven technology before we go off and throw billions on some system that hasn't seen very much success elsewhere? I'm not convinced that the energy usage is any better using maglev vs. steel wheel/rail. There might be a speed advantage, but the cost of obtaining that speed advantage would likely be enough to keep Amtrak running for decades into the future.

 

[MrFSS]

Very interesting. If they could make it run between Chicago and the west coast (it would cost a lot to do so) it could easily compete with airlines, especially at the speeds they can reach. And, stop at major population centers along the way. 2000 miles at an average of 200 mph, 10 hours! Probably would be difficult through the mountains, though.

 

[Amtrak Watcher]

Early in 2003 I attended a technical meeting that covered (among other things) these high-speed rail technologies. The current sate of the art suggests that Maglev, and other very high-speed technologies, don’t seem to be cost effective for anything but metropolitan area travel. The excess costs are construction and the costs associated transmitting and controlling the tremendous amounts of current required. The experts assembled at the meeting seemed to agree that Maglev (or some kind of similar alternative) is inevitable in large metropolitan areas, but that diesel power remains the only viable alternative for transcontinental trains and high-speed electric rail for inter-city services. Most interesting was the universal feeling among the experts that high-speed inter-city rail can attain speeds of 300 mph with light weight equipment and advanced control mechanisms.

 

[AlanB]

And then you still have the Nimby factor. We can't even get existing train lines reactivated without a huge fight, much less build new tracks. Just imagine trying to build a ROW for maglev.

 

[EmpireBuilderFan]

And then you still have the Nimby factor. We can't even get existing train lines reactivated without a huge fight, much less build new tracks. Just imagine trying to build a ROW for maglev.

Probably be like some the arguments that were put against building the West County expansion of the MetroLink in St. Louis: "We don't want it in this neighborhood. The bridges and tracks are too unsightly." :blink:

 

[Firebert]

How is that any different from any other neighborhood ever? Nobody except maybe people who visit boards like these would ever want to live in a transportation corridor.

-Firebert

 

[AlanB]

Nobody except maybe people who visit boards like these would ever want to live in a transportation corridor.-Firebert

Actually that's not true. The highest priced real estate in any city is always that which is less than a 4 block walk from the nearest train station. This is a trend that has now extended to many outlying suburbs too.

Yes there are people right up against the tracks that aren't happy, but if their home is within a 1/2 mile of a train station, then again that home is worth more than a home further away. Sometimes it's worth 30 to 40 % more than an otherwise comparable home not near a corridor.

So people are paying a premium to live in a transportation corridor, and they're not all rail fans.

 

[EmpireBuilderFan]

It must be true here in the Chicagoland area as well. Riding the Metra in the outlying suburbs, I see a lot of development that is obviously geared towards easy access to the Metra stations. It's about time!

 

[tp49]

Look at a lot of the development in the SF Bay Area, one prime example is the recently completed Fruitvale Transit village at the Fruitvale BART Station. In fact local governments here in Northern California are willing to assist in resolving any zoning issues as well as assisting in getting additional funding and tax breaks for developers who are willing to build near transit. It also helps that in some areas the only developable land left is near the tracks. B)

 

[AmtrakWPK]

I don't guess you could do it where there are steep grades, but why couldn't we put in high-speed rail trunks along (in the median of) existing Interstate Highways? Curves might need to be widened out, perhaps, although banked curves would help a lot there. I would think that if long straight stretches of high-speed rail could be put together that way, and it obviously worked, then maybe resistance to connecting those into major cities might lessen as folks there realized what they would gain. High-speed rail would certainly make a LOT less noise, and what noise it did make would have a much smaller footprint, compared to umpteen square miles surrounding any major airport, and perhaps you could help sell the idea at least partly by dangling the carrot of reduced air traffic (and noise) at the local jetport as high speed rail starts to siphon off some of the traffic. And although I really don't know, I would guess that with proper engineering, it should be possible to handle a much steeper grade with high-speed rail than a freight could, so except for where there are tunnels (on the Interstates), or lots of rolling hills (think "roller-coaster") maybe this could work. Run it to just outside the city on the interstate and provide "alternate transportation", at least initially, into the cities. Intersect with existing pax rail into the cities, with a bi-or-tri-modal station, if that option is available. Using Interstate Right-Of-Way should sharply reduce the costs to initially install, and cut down the lead time, since eminent domain wouldn't be required - the Interstates are already government property as far as I know. It would still require a huge capital outlay, but not nearly as much as buying up all that land to run it downtown and through completely new corridors would. And maybe a couple of specific demonstration city pairs could be researched and chosen as being the ones most likely to immediately start paying for themselves with lots of ridership. Dallas/Houston/San Antonio come to mind, or maybe Atlanta-Tampa-Miami, Chicago-St.Louis, or ????? Certainly that's what you'd need to sell it to the rest of the Country. We need a Super-Whopper-Turbocharged Megaball Lottery, with a 50-Trillion$ payoff, with the winner being high-speed rail.

 

[Firebert]

Alan-

You are right, accessibility does enhance property values. I still think that NIMBY-ism comes from people who are along the right of way who don't have a local station. (They get the noise/pollution/etc. without the benefit of using the transit system.) It terms of Maglev, it would be impossible to place a station in every neighborhood it passed through. There would never be enough time to hit top speed before you would have to start braking for the next station. Besides, a dense population base would be needed to support it. I could see an LA to San Diego run, or even Sacramento to Bay area. Then there's the Northeast Corridor, but that's about it.

-Firebert