Posted on 07/05/2003 12:40:38 PM PDT by Diddle E. Squat
Even the Germans, who invented the technology and have been pushing hard to sell it are throwing in the towel. China had been their only major customer for a big network that they claimed would "showcase" maglev's true benefits. Even China wised up.
What a boondoggle, maybe Arlen thinks it is actually Scottish technology?
Here's the latest maglev-related scam to fleece the taxpayers. 80% Fed taxpayer funding to build a $188 million 2.5 mile line to run around a PA college. Totally incompatable technology with roads or rail, any system built would require an entire network of brand new infrastructure and ROW and/or air rights, unlike buses or trains. I guess they didn't learn from the boondoggle failure of the similar people movers at the university in West Virginia, always a popular subject on the 'Fleecing of America' type programs.
Bacon, bacon, I smell bacon...
In a way, they have a point.
After WWII, Europe and Germany put a lot of effort into rebuilding their passenger rail system. And they've continually upgraded and improved their conventional rail service to where it's the envy of the rest of the world. (Well, almost. Japan essentially did the same thing after WWII, so their passenger rail service is excellent as well.)
The one downside to this is that their existing infrastructure is so good that it minimizes the benefits of implementing an innovative technology like Maglev because it is not backward compatible with conventional rail infrastructure.
The United States, OTOH, essentially abandoned passenger rail service after WWII and focused efforts of construction of the Interstate Highway System. The infrastructure for passenger rail service was left to decay to Third World Standards. That is why the United States, like China, is positioned to more greatly benefit from construction of new technology rather than resurrecting the old.
It is not at all surprising that China has opted to go with high-speed rail vs. Maglev on one of their routes. Although they are competing technologies, I support them both. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages dependent on the specific conditions of the terrain and climate they must travel through. High-speed rail has the construction cost advantage across relatively level terrain. But it can only travel up grades of maybe 1~2% compared to !0% for Maglev. This gives Maglev the advantage in hilly terrain by minimizing the need for extensive grading and/or tunneling.
High-speed rail also has a slight speed disadvantage, 190 mph max vs 300 mph for Maglev. Faster is obviously better, and either one will do if you're only poking along at only 45 mph on a run-down, dilapidated system. But if you already have the 190 mph, like Germany does, it's a little more difficult to scrap to change over to the 300 mph.
Thanks for the heads up!
I know you're a whacknut opposed to any type of mass transportation system whatsoever. But it gives me the opportunity to briefly explain to others the distinction between the available technologies. One may be more appropriate than the other, depending what region of our nation they may live in.
The paper said that Chinese authorities were leaning instead towards the high-speed, Japanese-developed Shinkansen train for the 1,300km line.I don't think so. Considering the rivalry between Japan and China, I doubt they would consider using Japnese technology instead of German unless there were technical advantages to the Japanese technology.
And EXACTLY the same thing can be said of the U.S. with respect to its highway and airport systems. If you want mass transit, buy and run buses. Don't try to steal taxpayers money to establish a whole different (and hugely expensive) infrastructure as is necessary with any and all rail systems.
ROTFLMAO! Boy are you ever ill-suited for that occupation!
Much like Larry Flynt pretending to be a minister, isn't it? LOL!
One would think you'd be excited by the development technology and alternatives.
The low-speed maglev that you denigrate is a case in point.
It shows significant promise for urban commuters.
But for some reason, your opposed to even constructing a demonstration project to PROVE it's capabilities.
Are you afraid that it actually WILL PROVE what the promoters claim? Hmmmm....???
Operating on an elevated guideway, low-speed maglev can be constructed with a very small footprint in congested urban areas. Needing room only for its support pillars, it travels ABOVE congested roadways where there isn't even enough room to add another lane. And like it's high-speed counterpart, low-speed maglev can easily travel on steep grades of up to 7%. This makes it capable of not only operating in hilly terrain, but the guideway could conceivabley be built to quick go up and over an existing urban structure that may be in its path. Plus at the lower speed, it should be able to negotiate tighter turns than the high speed maglev, allowing the system designers even more flexibility in threading it through congested urban areas with minimal conflict with existing structures.
LOL! If you can't see the potential advantages, then you're in the WRONG occupation!!!
Nobody's advocating replacement of highways and air travel with rail. Quite the opposite. The sensible approach is to integrate the different modes of travel with each other to provide the traveling public with the flexible and convenient choice of switching from one to the other. As part of this approach towards integration, most of these plans propose building maglev/high-speed rail/mass-transit stops AT THE AIRPORTS where infrastructure for travelers already exists (car rental, hotels, restaurants, etc. etc.) At these hubs, travelers can easily switch from one mode of transportation to another as best suits their needs. There's parking for their personal cars, the Maglev or high-speed rail station, the airline terminal, rental cars, taxis, shuttle buses, maybe light rail for local commuters etc. etc. All integrated and interconnected. Hop off of one and onto another!!!
ROTFLMAO!!!
Man, you're killing me!!! LOL!!!
You're funnier than those fuddy-duddies at IBM with their infamous "The PC is just a toy, it'll never replace the mainframe", ROTFL,
Man, what a waste of a career, going to work every day for years and years, only to get your head stuck up your butt!
LOL! You luddites are a riot!
The hell they're not. One of the fondest goals of the eco-nutcase movement is to eliminate the "internal combustion engine" (aka the automobile), and force EVERYONE into "mass transit".
Add to that the FACT that the funds used to finance the "mass transit" activities are invariably funded with money stolen from the highway gasoline tax trust funds, which rightfully should be used to build and repair highways. That is one MAJOR reason I don't have a problem with mass transit using buses, as it legitimately uses the same infrastructure "I" pay for with my gas taxes. I don't EVER plan to use rail transport of any sort, unless someone holds a gun to my head and forces me to, so I see no reason why my tax dollars should be stolen to finance rail.
So you gotta prove that you're even goofier than they are by becoming a raving lunatic at the opposite extreme?
Talk about idiocy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.