SUPERTRAIN
- Posted by ryan on October 30th, 2008 filed in Transit
So, this happened:
A proposal to build a high-speed train between Baltimore and D.C. that hadn’t progressed in five years may claim $15 million to get moving again — albeit slowly.
The Federal Railroad Administration is making $45 million available for three magnetic levitation train projects, known as Maglev. Backers of a plan to build a 40-mile Maglev in the Baltimore/Washington corridor are considering application for at least a third of that money.
But even though federal cash for Maglev projects is flowing for the first time in years, the money may be out of reach for the Baltimore-Washington project, estimated to cost $3.7 billion in 2002 dollars.
With state money for transportation projects scarce, it’s not clear whether there will be funds to match any federal offering for the project.
The Maglev is viewed as a powerful resource for driving regional economic development and accommodating expected growth in public transportation use.
The Maglev, with its 18-minute projected travel time between the two cities, would address a need for more transportation capacity in the corridor with 50 percent population growth by 2040, said Phyllis Wilkins, head of Maglev Maryland.
What to say? Should this be our highest priority? No. But if a Mag-Lev did, in fact, deliver people from downtown Baltimore to downtown Washington in 18 minutes, and if it ran regularly and didn’t cost $100 each way, then it would end up being incredibly lucrative for the city of Baltimore. You can’t get from Union Station to Bethesda or Ballston in 18 minutes. You damn sure can’t get to Tysons that fast. The value of office space in Baltimore would immediately soar. And homes? You can still get a giant, beautiful rowhouse in Baltimore for the price of a Washington efficiency. Not with Mag-Lev. In effect, the train would pick up Baltimore and move it about 35 miles closer to Wasington. Potentially, that could pay off pretty marvelously for the region as a whole.
The main point, however, is that there a lots of gains like this to be had; better and faster transportation across regions increases economic potential (and if it also makes the transportation system greener and reduces highway congestion, then so much the better). For some city-pairs, the gains to doing something like this might be large enough to justify moving forward. At a broader level, we should really be functioning within a comprehensive plan, and building systems that improve transportation at all levels–neighborhood, city, metroplex, regional, and national–by setting priorities and allocating funds appropriately.
October 30th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Maglev is damn sexy, but the projected daily ridership per the cost of the project is pretty low.
IMO it all comes down to what money is available. If transit money becomes as easy to come by as highway money after the next TEA bill, then we should build this, and it should continue up the NE corridor ASAP. On the other hand, if the funding situation continues more or less as it has for the past couple of decades, then those valuable dollars should be spent on transit projects with a greater ridership bang for their buck.
October 30th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Rationally I get that there are better, more productive ways of using limited funds than a really expensive maglev project.
But WOW. DC to Baltimore in 18 minutes? I want it sooooooo bad…
October 30th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Yeah, the funding situation is crucial. I think initial ridership will be pretty darn low, but if the travel time and frequency numbers are good, the change after a couple of decades could be profound. We’re talking about real integration of the two cities, rather than simply proximity.
October 30th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
I believe that there’s a bottleneck in the rail tunnel under Baltimore harbor that could be alleviated for less money and that would have positive repercussions throughout the NE corridor.
But yeah, it’s definitely a drool-worthy idea. And kind of a no-brainer for the city of Baltimore, no? I mean, this is the kind of thing that’s begging for tax increment financing (TIF), or LID-type tax, where you float a bond and then pay for it by taxing the resulting increases in property values.
October 30th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
While we’re at it, can we extend it to NY and be there in an hour and a quarter, or maybe to Boston in two and a half hours?
Ignoring the costs for a second, that would be AWESOME.
October 30th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
… and the demand it would induce to finish the electric train local transit system in Baltimore, too.
October 30th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
It would increase the value of housing in B.More and decrease the housing pressure in DC.
If you threw in 1-2 stops on the BWE, you’d develop that area further.
Does it need to be Mag Lev though, a largely untested technolgy? (I think an airport in China has one)
The train only needs to go ~130 mph to cover 40 miles in 18 minutes. You could build a French TGV or a Japanese Shinkansen for that.
You could conceivably make a bus that fast.
And High Speed Rail is a good idea, when it’s actually high speed. Please see the DC/NYC Acela, which only saves 30-40 minutes on a 4 hour trip.
October 30th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
How many people take the MARC train from Baltimore to Union Station every day? Isn’t that pretty much at capacity now? And how many people would switch from choking the I95/BW Parkway to an 18 minute commute? Baltimore has a BIG population of folks who work in and around DC but were either priced out of the market or couldn’t find the sort of bluecollar burg vibe that Baltimore provides. Ultimately, a DC to NYC supertrain should be the goal, but I say this is still a winner all around. It sure as hell beats pissing away billions on nonsense like widening the Beltway or opening up HOV lanes.
October 30th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
It seems obvious we could build quite a few of these projects for the cost of a $700 billion Wall Street bailout. Arguably, investing in productive infrastructure would put a more solid foundation under our economy that propping up the Wall Street gamblers.
But it sounds like an untested system that wouldn’t connect with a regional or national plan, would involve high costs for a fairly pedestrian task (commuting), would in all probability not stimulate domestic expertise in Maglev technology (or would do so in a pork-barrel fashion), and would be extremely likely to become an example of what not to do.
What would some real money (not a piddly $45 million starter grant) do for an existing line between the two cities? Three billion would buy 50 miles at $60 million a mile, not an impossible benchmark if there are no intermediate stations.
It would appear that regular HSR trainsets on dedicated and grade-separated ROW would do the same job and act as a signpost to the future.
IMHO, we need to start thinking big, as in TVA or Grand Coulee big, building a new infrastructure that supports a sound economy, reduces AGW, and meets the needs of the future in economical fashion.
Something like California’s Prop 1A, intended to create a new transportation corridor for anticipated growth at less cost than enlarging roads and airports.
And I’m just not seeing where a nation’s first maglev as a 40-mile segment for commuters fits in that picture.
October 30th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Do we really need Mag Lev from DC to Baltimore? Can’t HSR do just about the same over such a short distance? Overhead Wire frequently makes the case that there’s no reason why HSR can’t do as well as maglev period. (Hell, the old Metroliner trains were running at Acela speeds even back in the 60s).
I get the point that if they want to build maglev as a demonstration, then we might as well benefit from it. But I’m highly dubious that they’ll make a system that will be affordable for daily use.
I guess I’d rather them spend that money to improve Acela rather than make a competing line.
But like you said, if they insist on making it, it really would be drool worthy (particularly if they could get you to BWI faster than a cab ride to National.)
October 30th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
According to Google Maps, driving time from downtown Washington to downtown Baltimore is about an hour.
Since the vast majority of trips between Washington and Baltimore do not start and end at the train stations, it seems unlikely that this $4.7 billion maglev train would save significant amounts of travel time over driving.
Even the existing Acela service only takes 29-34 minutes each way. I find it highly implausible that a time savings on the order 11 minutes between Washington and Baltimore would have the dramatic effect on housing and development that Ryan suggests.
October 31st, 2008 at 9:26 am
Its sounds awesome. But currently its a a 30 minute train ride. Spending the money on improving MARC service: weekends, nights, some limited stop trains, etc. Extend the Acela track into Virginia. Correct any issues with the Acela track between DC and Wilmington. We want that train going full speed as much as possible.
If on the Acela track you could go the full 120+ for the majority of the route, the non-stop DC to Baltimore would probably only take 20 minutes.
I think we have the train to do that trip in 20 minutes, the track/catenary/etc. is just not up to that standard.
October 31st, 2008 at 9:46 am
4.7 billion could conceivably buy us a streetcar grid, Inner Purple Line, Separated Blue Line, & Green Line to Fort Meade.
Maglev definitely makes sense as far as rail transport, but I would argue that with HSR topping out at about 220mph, its proper (and *ENTIRELY* technically possible) domain is in the 300-400mph range, over intercity distances & a large network, with integrated high-value freight. The issue is that since we don’t have many corridors remotely capable of HSR, it’s very attractive to skip a generation of technology and go straight to maglev for new corridors. France spent half a century building smoothed-out banked routes for their system to run on, which could be stretched relatively easily to the speeds we see today. Meanwhile, we limited our systems to slower and slower routes and tracks to accommodate suburban development and freight traffic. We would have to start over with a new RoW to achieve HSR, and that makes Maglev inherently attractive.
When you’re constructing an entirely new RoW, there are network effects that kick in and make you reconsider the old traditional ways - economies of scale, extra features, and design shortcuts you can take if you don’t have to conform to the ancient 4′8.25″ Standard Gauge. The cost of building & maintaining a Standard Gauge railroad running at 220mph, the edge of its reliable capability, is likely comparable or even more than the cost of a much-higher-capability maglev railroad.
An HSR system from Baltimore to Washington isn’t that practical - any reasonable service level, from both an accounting and a customer-conveniance level, has a much higher traffic than Baltimore-Washington could support. We need our tracks to be subsidized by through traffic from Boston & New York To Richmond & Norfolk to support trains that are scheduled close together to make the Baltimore-DC connection you propose. That 4.7 billion rail segment doesn’t make any sense unless you can run lots of trains over it per hour. The same goes for maglev.
In short: If we’re buying for pure capabilities, I would support a trillion-dollar maglev that buys us a 10,000 mile national network in a massive public works project, but not a 5 billion-dollar maglev built over 40 miles. If we’re buying for a test track, we’re being bold about its features (if these things can’t haul cars & ISO containers in a RORO manner, we’re missing out) and we’re constructing several of them to allow a little competition to ferret out best practices, sign me up! Right after funding the $20 bil or so that an expansionary Metro needs for the next decade.
October 31st, 2008 at 9:48 am
PS: There’s no point to connecting Baltimore and Washington in 15 minutes if the trains run empty, or if they run twice a day.
October 31st, 2008 at 12:47 pm
The Acela, if it makes no intermediate stops, is scheduled to leave Baltimore 30 mins after departing DC. Most of that track is quite straight - curves are not the problem. The limiting factor is the power system. It is both an old standard (12kV 25Hz, opposed to the more modern 25kV 60Hz for TGVs and the newest sections of the NEC) and old insfrastructure - the depression-era catenary supports cannot handle speeds faster than about 135 mph, thus the trains don’t run as fast as they could.
There are 41.3 miles of NEC track between Union Station and Penn Station in Baltimore. Obviously, the train won’t run flat out the entire way. Still, if you upgrade the top end speed and increase the distance where the train can run at that speed, you could significantly improve that time just with the existing track alignments and rolling stock.
If you were to improve the rolling stock to TGV-quality stuff (top end speed more like 200 mph) then you could achieve the same kind of Maglev performance with the existing technology.
Incremental improvement to the existing tracks is the way to go. The Maglev is cool and sexy, but not all that practical.
November 2nd, 2008 at 11:37 pm
The line would also stop at the airport right? That would make BWI closer to downtown than DCA (by time).