Do Maglev Trains Make Sense in America?

[CryoCoffinVampire]

The irony is that the U.S. is perfect for inter city express trains given how our cities are spaced. We used to have an extremely strong network for it’s time 100 years ago, but cars, automotive companies, and their lobbyists ruined everything.

[TheArklyte]

Counter point: americans will find an excuse to add 2 hour long security check for trains

[Richardincancale]

Ordinary steel on steel wheels and rails also work pretty well, at much lower cost. Trains running at 330 km/h are the norm here for long distance routes.

[VincitOmniaVeritas]

When I lived in Spain, I took the fast train from Barcelona-Madrid and never boarded a plane for that route again. There are so many advantages to traveling by train that even if the plane takes 30 min (if everything goes to plan, there’s no bad weather) I’m still taking the train. No security check, no check-in luggage, more space, you arrive at center of the city, etc.

[zUJEjVD]

You gotta remember with any of these calculations, that time on a plane or driving a car is wasted where it's not on a train or bus. Like, driving obviously you need to devote your entire attention to the road (yes, that includes you) and planes are basically a torture device. Trains, when adequately comfortable and divided, are basically an office or hotel room on wheels.That basically cuts the travel time to however long it takes to get to the train station.

[joelwill]

Please use more contrasting colors on the graphs for us colorblind folks!

[Ice_Karma]

How does this short have anything to do with maglev? You get all the benefits you tout with regular high-speed rail, too.

[krombopulos_michael]

A big calculation here has to be how many people actually want to move between these cities too. High speed rail has huge upfront infrastructure costs, but these then get offset by it being a more efficient way to move large numbers of people between two places quickly. NY and LA are two big cities, but do enough people want to go back and forth between them every day to justify ever building a high speed rail line between them?

[DonVigaDeFierro]

Trains? Definitely.
MAGLEV trains? Definitely not. The few existing ones operate at a loss, because they consume way too much energy. And they are for regional areas only, nothing as huge as a trip from NY to LA.

[NickH-ol]

All we need now is that south Korean superconductor to work

[tmhunter]

The real problem with high speed rail in USA is real estate. Current routes are often speed limited due to tight curves. Increasing the speed simply requires purchasing more real estate, and a route this long would push costs dramatically.

[Ironic]

The problem for all ground-based transport is that the Permanent Way requires construction and maintenance, while air transport only requires facilities at end points, the air being free and maintenance-free...

[am]

"High-speed rail" isn't necessarily the best option. The main defect of our passenger rail system is that there are many medium and large cities which have no passenger service at all.

[CriticalMass-yuec]

We need this in our infrastructure like yesterday. They should be going to every major city in the US

[davehopping]

Which is why passenger train travel takes place in the Northeast US, Japan, and Europe, where distances are within that competitive area. The example of NYC-LA in 7 hours doesn't compete with a 4.5 hour plane trip. Not to mention the cost of a 3, 000 mile high-speed rail line. If in the (somewhat distant) future the tech exists to get people from NYC-LA in 2 hours on the ground at half the air cost it'll be railfan heaven, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

[Larrymh]

Good point, and I would even celebrate and use a 40 to 50 mph commuter rail here in NE Ohio. EVERYDAY there's an accident and freeway traffic is at a stand still. This area isn't even nearly the worst, such as the DC area, LA, the eastern seaboard, Houston, etc.

[saurabhsinghmakrahi]

Would love to have a Maglev between NY and LA. That would be sweet but probably prohibitively expensive 🤔

[Nathan-vtjz]

I love riding trains, but the crucial issue is cost. If you’re a wealthy businessman and just paying for yourself a train ticket makes sense as travel time is a main factor while cost is not. For a family, the cost for train or plane is 2-6 times the cost depending on the size of the family. Here’s a theoretical example of the cost assuming train is cheaper than plane for one way Dallas to LA:

One Person:
Plane ticket - $400
Train ticket - $300
Car (fuel cost) - $100

Family of Two:
Plane tickets - $800
Train tickets - $600
Car (fuel) - $110

Family of Four:
Plane tickets - $1600
Train tickets - $1200
Car (fuel) - $120

Family of Six:
Plane tickets - $2400
Train tickets- $1800
Car (fuel) - $130

Then double it for a two way trip…

For families and lower/middle class people, we can afford increased travel time, but we can’t afford the increased costs of plane or train travel. Even for a vacation the cost is prohibitive. Cars just make more sense financially for the majority of the USA.

[tomwang]

Well I think the united States needs to figure out how to build high speed rail at a reasonable price and relatively quickly before we even think about maglevs.

[mattcat]

Reduce security wait times for flights.