http://www.scag.ca.gov/maglev/pdf/mgtf102208_Cambridge.pdf

Thanks to the city of Los Angeles which kept the promises it made when it joined the maglev joint powers authority, the consultant did an honest comparison of maglev to conventional steel wheel on steel rail high speed train technology. And basically maglev provides little or no benefits versus high speed rail for a huge difference in capital cost.

Note SCAG hasn't had a maglev task force meeting for SIX months: http://www.scag.ca.gov/maglev/pdf/mgtf102208fullagn.pdf

SCAG has new leadership and I suspect they know a sow's ear masquerading as a silk purse when it sees one.

Instead of railing at us folks in Southern california, maglev boosters should be networking with the folks in Vegas who are at work on a project that is supposed to link that city with Anahaim (aka California-Nevada Super Speed Train Commission). They have obtained some federal funds for planning and certainly seem more hospitable than we folks. Abandon us to our maglev-less fate. ;-)

This is an opportunity to leapfrog existing technology and move ahead of the current standards. In rebuilding its infrastructure after being largely destroyed by American bombers in World War II, Japan, with America's help, chose the most cutting edge technologies and invested the resources to develop these technologies into practical solutions. Among the projects undertaken was the development of the Shinkansen "bullet train" system. This took vast amounts of capital, time and effort but the investment eventually paid off. Today Japan has the world's best rail system.

Paradoxically, with respect to passenger rail transportation, the United States face a situation similar to what Japan faced with respect to its entire infrastructure in the 50s and 60s. Because the auto and oil interests have been able to quash the development of rail systems over the last century in this country, we are starting with relatively less exisiting infrastructure or "sunk costs". This should be seen as an opportunity rather than hinderance; Instead of settling for what is now the norm for highspeed rail, we can set the standard for tomorrow by investing in what will ultimately prove to be better technology. Unfortunately, it seems our political system lacks true leadership and is too fraught with naysayers and special interests to take this giant leap forward.

Maglev would offer California a chance to show true technological and environmental leadership. The costs are high, and there are risks but nothing revolutionary was ever achieved without incurring large costs and taking on significant risks.

Turns our there's a full-scale test facility in Germany operatng since 1984, but typically nobody in the USA cares about that and most people do remain skeptical.

Unfortunately, Shanghai is the only example of a commercial system out there, so I'm left to cite it for whatever aspect relates, even farebox recovery. I wish there were more examples.

---------------------

Calwatch, I am only suggesting that NIMBYs will be dealt with in the United States, when the time comes, because they've already protested maglev in cities such as Baltimore and metro Washington, D.C. and their effects have led to constructive dialogies with citizens groups and route adjustments as well.

There is much evidence to support your contention that maglev is not politically workable in the United States. No argument there.

However, I can't predict the future to say it will be very difficult to persuade people to accept maglev in their communities. Perception is reality, certainly, but maglev has not had a poor public perception everywhere. It's just been a very hard sell in California.

Concerns from Beijing and Shanghai were not just NIMBY concerns of noise and electromagnetic radiation, but also calls that the money could be better spent on better buses and local trains, as well as more highways. (And one man's NIMBY is another man's community organizing.) When people find out about maglev in their community, it will be very difficult to persuade them that it will bring a net positive, even if it might. Perception is reality, and maglev has a poor perception in the public.

How long has maglev been studied to death? In my recollection, longer than the high speed train proposal. Yet there is still no active test train? That feeds my skepticism.

Citing Shanghai as the shining example and quoting farebox recovery also should be taken with a grain of salt. Communist governments have been around longer than I have been alive, and one thing I have seen in common with all of them is that the "facts" are always skewed to make the government look right. Given that we are not likely to get an independent audit of the Shanghai system's financial books, I am extremely hesitant to take any proclamations by them at face value, and I suggest that Mr. Blow needs to find a more credible source.

The Shanghai maglev, as a commercial demonstration, may have failed to meet initial ridership projections, but is has consistently covered operations and maintenance costs through the fare box, so it pays for itself, in transit terms. And is not sinking. One or two support columns -- of the thousands in place -- were adjusted in the field during the initial construction phase in 2003/2004. Nothing unusual.

And the citizen protest in China over an extension of the maglev was organized by affluent NIMBY groups, just as we do experience in the USA.

The American Maglev Technology system at Old Dominion University in Virginia, which was a complete failure, has indeed produced absolutely nothing useful. It is one of many prototype system designs that is in the embryonic stage and may or may not ever become a viable commercial product.

No one addresses the concerns about maglev's noise because there should be none. The one European study that showed maglev noise to be more annoying than regular steel wheel trains was selectively engineered to obtain the desired outcome. Anyone who's experienced the Transrapid maglev system in Germany or China knows that reduced noise is one of maglev's strongest environmental features.

If, as calwatch mistakenly claims, "the effect of someone living next to a 200 mph maglev is similar to having jet planes take off next to them," imagine the effect of a 200-mph steel-wheel train running by instead, with its inherently higher noise (and vibration). Sound walls could never shield neighborhoods from the noise.

For anyone who has actually looked into high-speed maglev, there are no significant downsides, especially compared to other rail projects, unless you count full grade/route separation (incompatibility with commuter/freight rail) as a downside.

Finally, predicting that "a strong, grassroots opposition will form against the maglev in the United States if they run it at speeds anywhere near 100 mph" is laughably naive. In fact, the opposite is true. High-speed maglev has been evaluated for corridors in the USA for the past 20 years and several states are actively pursuing it today, in a grassroots support operation.

No one addresses the concerns about maglev's noise, which peer reviewed studies have shown to be more annoying than regular steel wheel trains. The effect of someone living next to a 200 mph maglev is similar to having jet planes take off next to them. Large soundwalls will have to be built to shield neighborhoods from the noise, which will create a tunnel effect adjacent to the trains.

As for maglev locally, the Orange Line maglev is a complete failure. The Orange County Transportation Authority revoked the authority to use the Pacific Electric right of way through their county, and is instead planning to use the ROW for a bike lane instead. SCAG, normally a supporter of maglev, pulled the Orange Line from its funded Regional Transportation Plan, and placed it in its strategic plan, due to lack of funding. It is very likely that the few hundred million given to the "West Santa Ana Branch Corridor" in Measure R will go away once environmental review begins. Environmental review and the public consultation process have not even begun. There are enough downsides to maglev, exceeding those of other rail and highway projects, that a strong, grassroots opposition will form against the maglev in the United States if they run it at speeds anywhere near 100 mph. And, at speeds less than 100 mph, steel wheel technology has a longer track record and is less reliant on whiz bang technology.

Later I tool French TGV (HSR) from Paris to the South of France, and it was so much more pleasant than flying -- you can get to the train station as little as 10 minutes before departure (not 2-3 hours for the airport!) and you can walk around while traveling, go get a martini in the food car, put up your feet, or what have you.

HSR can unite Northern & Southern California, just as it has united England with Continental Europe.

3706 N. Figueroa St, Los Angeles, CA 90065

We'll pass 'em around to our clientele.

My E-Mail: g a r y r i d e s b i k e s @ g m a i l .c o m

http://trainsareawesome.blogspot.com/2008/10/prop-1a-ca-high-speed-rail-new-postcard.html

These studies are establishing the technical and environmental baselines to prepare for the future, and most are considering high-speed rail as well as maglev technologies. There's nothing ridiculous about such work.