Maglev gets no love

Former L.A. Councilwoman Ruth Galanter doesn't seems to think all the talk of bringing Maglev transit to L.A. makes much sense. Writing in the Daily News, she says:

Local maglev fans claim the private sector will build the trains, so this isn't going to cost the taxpayers. But here are some questions no one has bothered to ask: Where will the train lines be located? What is there now, and where will it be moved? Who will pay to relocate displaced residents and businesses? Who will pay for the right of way? What happens if the technology doesn't work out as promised? Are there warranties or a plan to remove anything that doesn't work?

More on where the route would go:

How does the train get from LAX to a freeway? No answer. Which freeway? Doesn't matter, the SCAG director said. So I picked 105 to 110 to 101 to Union Station. Do we run at freeway level or on top? On top, he said. What happens at the interchanges? (Let me remind you that before the 105 reaches the 110, it crosses the 405 at a many-level interchange.) Does my train go through the middle or over the top? The top? How high and how steeply can a maglev train climb?

Comments

[Rau El]

instead of train vs car, why not combining them:
http://www.avt-train.com/

[Dan W.]

"That being said, the U.S. should build at least one mag-lev line; whether it be D.C. to New York or L.A. to Las Vegas. We need to participate in the research and development of this technology. These trains will one day travel at 1,200 miles per hour, making the biggest, fastest jets look like snails. We want to be at the forefront of this technology and right now we are far behind."

This is actually good point.

The place to start with Maglev is something like the high-rail train from LAX to Las Vegas, not as a substitute for commuter, heavy or light rail. For all of the collateral research and development benefits, that is a good reason to explore this technology.

It's not a substitute for our desperately needed "Subway to the Sea" and other locally needed public transit projects.

[Paul]

Maglev is just too expensive and not cost effective for the short intracity trips SCAG was planning to use it for. You can approach comparable speeds with high speed rail at billions of dollars less.

That being said, the U.S. should build at least one mag-lev line; whether it be D.C. to New York or L.A. to Las Vegas. We need to participate in the research and development of this technology. These trains will one day travel at 1,200 miles per hour, making the biggest, fastest jets look like snails. We want to be at the forefront of this technology and right now we are far behind.

[Dan W.]

Maglev sounds great to people who's sole experience with public transit is the Disneyland monorail.

There is no shortcut to building the heavy, light, and commuter rail system we need locally.

We do need a high-speed rail system between San Diego and Sacramento via San Francisco, San Jose, Fresno and Los Angeles, and a high-speed rail link to Las Vegas.

Monorail and Maglev are not cheaper or quicker alternative to the "Subway to the Sea" for all the reasons Ruth Galanter outlines so well.

We know what we have to do and it will indeed cost money. However, the alternative long-term economic and environmental costs of not building the heavy, light and commuter rail system and rapid/local bus system we need is unthinkable.

[peter Chalks]

She doesn't know anything about maglev and she wants to feel important. No comment.

[JDRCRASH]

How ridiculous. The 10 Freeway to Ontario.

[Jimmy]

Just shut up and build it. Or why dont we just pave over the entire surface area of California with asphalt like everyones been doing. Highways are out, its time to do something radically different with our transportation methods.