CHAPTER 4 Magnetic Levitation and Related Systems CONTENTS Page System Concepts . 60 State of the Technology . 64 maglev Systems in Operation . .64 U.S. Research . 64 Status of German maglev . .. 69 Status of Japanese maglev . .70 maglev R&D Needs . 72 Economic Considerations . 73 Market Potential . 73 costs . .74 Regulations and Safety . 76 Institutional Framework . .. ., . ., ........76 Safety Certification . ,76 Guideways . .78 Health and Environmental Issues . .81 Institutional and Financing Issues . 82 Community Acceptance . .......82 Intergovernmental and Financing Issues . 83 Conclusions . 84 Economics and Market Potential . 84 Guideways and Right-of-Way . 84 Research and Development . 84 Institutional Issues . 85 Boxes Box Page 4-A maglev Suspension Concepts . .......62 4-B. Alternative Concepts . ,63 4-C. High-Speed Rail Transportation . 65 4-D. High-Speed Passenger Rail Abroad . 66 4-E. High-Speed Rail Safety Standards . .‘.. ......77 4-F. Multiple Uses of Highway Rights-of-Way . 80 Figure Figure Page 4-1. maglev Suspension Concepts . 62 Tables Table Page 4-1. maglev and High-Speed Rail Corridors Under Consideration . .. .61 4-2. Comparison of maglev and High-Speed Rail . 65 4-3. Funding for Freight and High-Speed Ground Transportation Research ... .......68 4-4. Comparative Economic Data for 250-mph maglev and 200-mph High-Speed Rail ......75 4-5. Noise Characteristics of Transportation and Other Activities . +. ,82 CHAPTER 4 Magnetic Levitation and Related Systems Twin goals—to relieve air and ground traffic con- based fuels, improved transport energy efficiency, in- gestion and to be technologically competitive in trans- creased tourism and employment, and reduced (airline portation—have prompted considerable interest in competitive) travel time and congestion of other trans- the United States in high-speed ground transportation portation modes. In addition to transporting passen- alternatives. The ridership levels enjoyed by high- gers, both could carry low-density freight during speed rail systemsl in France and Japan and in some offpeak hours, and their rights-of-way could be used high-speed rail corridors in other countries demon- for other purposes, such as fiberoptic cables and other strate the feasibility of high-speed rail technology and communications links. Obstacles to both maglev and arouse interest in a guided ground transportation tech- high-speed rail center around right-of-way acquisition, nology that is potentially even faster—magnetically infrastructure costs, and an uncertain market. levitated (maglev) vehicles. High-speed rail is an off- the-shelf technology, and could be operated in the High-speed rail technologies capable of speeds United States over some existing rail right-of-way, if greater than 125 to 150 miles per hour (mph) have the track were upgraded appropriately. maglev proto- been commercially introduced on a wide scale in types have been tested extensively, but to operate, a France, Japan, and, most recently, Germany. Gener- maglev system would require new rights-of-way and ally considered for the same intercity corridors as construction of a new and different guideway. maglev, such systems have received serious considera- tion in the United States in California, Texas, and The uncertainties about ridership, costs, infrastruc- Florida. A number of other areas have either com- ture investment, and some technical issues that accom- pleted studies or are now evaluating potential high- pany any new transportation technology make it hard speed service. to assure the commercial success of either high-speed rail or maglev in this country. In fact, efforts so far to maglev concepts can include one or many vehicles, finance such new systems in the United States from but all include levitating and propelling a mass trans- private sources have not succeeded. In addition, only a portation vehicle or vehicles by magnetic forces. sketchy regulatory framework currently exists here for maglev systems are potentially quiet, efficient trans- these technologies. Moreover, it is unclear whether portation alternatives that could make the Nation less their environmental effects—principally noise and dependent on petroleum, the source of 97 percent of electromagnetic fields—are acceptable to the public, U.S. transportation energy. A number of designs and or which corridors have sufficient ridership potential applications have been developed or proposed for and feasible construction costs. At this point, it is safe maglev, ranging from low-speed people movers to in- to say that intercity maglev will require some govern- tercity trains traveling 300+ mph. Although maglev mental support for system development, testing, and has not yet been used for high-speed commercial serv- construction. ice, systems are under evaluation for several applica- tions worldwide. For example, Transrapid technology Despite these unanswered questions, supporters of developed in Germany is being considered for corridor intercity maglev and high-speed rail systems claim a and feeder routes in the United States and has been number of benefits: superior safety, economic devel- examined as a potential option for the Soviet Union, opment near stations along the corridor, low air pol- Saudi Arabia, and Canada. Opinion among high-speed lution, technology leadership and export potential ground transportation experts in this countryis sharply from developing or implementing an advanced trans- divided on whether to develop U.S.-based technology portation system, independence from petroleum- or adapt existing foreign technologies to U.S. condi- 1 ~ese are steel wheel-on-rail systems that travel at sustained speeds inexeess of125 miles per hour. -59- 60 ● New Ways: Tiltrotor Aircraft and Magnetically Levitated Vehicles tions. Table 4-1 describes the status of various intercity times at intermediate points, reduced speed through corridor projects, both maglev and high-speed rail, in curves, and the additional time required for accelera- the United States. tion and deceleration also lower average trip speed and increase overall travel time. Thus, a straight route This chapter discusses various technologies and is- without unnecessary stops will enhance ridership pros- sues for maglev, including research and development pects for maglev. Proposed station sites include city (R&D), estimated performance characteristics, envi- centers, airports, suburbs, and passenger terminals for ronmental impacts, costs, benefits, and the insti- other modes. Almost all maglev concepts currently tutional framework surrounding maglev, including envision just one system operator using the infrastruc- safety, regulation, and financing. Comparisons and ture. contrasts for high-speed rail are provided in many instances, since it is an option that is available now. At Other potential advantages of maglev include enor- issue are the appropriate Federal roles in developing mous passenger capacity and vehicle consist2 flexibil- U.S.-based technology, adapting existing foreign sys- ity. Since maglev vehicles in some concepts could tems to U.S. applications, developing safety standards, depart at intervals of 1 minute or less (current high- and funding intercity corridors and demonstration speed rail systems operate at 3- to 4-minute intervals), projects. as many as 10,000 to 20,000 passengers per hour could be moved with 200-passenger vehicles. Because most System Concepts maglev systems do not have onboard propulsion units (the power is in the guideway), small passenger vehi- maglev designs, which run the gamut from slow- cles might be feasible, which would allow direct, eco- speed people movers (50 mph or less) to high-speed nomical, point-to-point service without intermediate (300+ mph) passenger vehicles, have been proposed stops. For commuter and people mover applications, for intracity as well as intercity applications. maglev maglev offers no fundamental advantage over conven- vehicles, which could consist of one to any number of tional rail technology, although it may produce less passenger cars, are supported, guided, and propelled noise, be less costly to maintain, and be able to accel- by electromagnetic or electrodynamics forces over a erate faster. Short, slower speed maglev routes have dedicated (usually elevated) guideway (see figure 4-l). been proposed more for reasons of technology demon- maglev systems generally fall into two categories, char- stration and possible economic development than for acterized by how the vehicle is suspended. The suspen- any dramatic improvements over existing technology sion technologies for proposed and existing maglev options. designs include electromagnetic suspension (EMS), which the high-speed German Transrapid uses, and For passenger comfort, both the Transrapid and JR electrodynamics suspension (EDS), used by the Japa- systems would require a route with little horizontal or nese National Railways (JR) system (see box 4-A). vertical curvature to achieve revenue speeds as high as Alternative designs have been proposed that incorpo- those reached in tests. Even high-speed rail systems, rate automatic banking features to improve passenger such as the French TGV, need a straight right-of-way comfort through curves while still maintaining high in order to achieve top revenue speeds (presently 186 speeds. maglev concepts considered in this chapter are mph). Since a straight right-of-way is not feasible in limited to multisection vehicles operating on trunk many of the U.S. intercity corridors most in need of lines.