You’re exactly right! Those are the kind of considerations that need to play in to any HSR conversation.

Most importantly, the elevated structure doesn’t create nearly the kind of impact that at-grade systems do, so the ROW acquisition should be simpler and easier.

Now as to the Shanghai system, I think a lot of people here are studying that, but there are some drawbacks. Most significantly, the technology they employed is extremely expensive.

That’s why I like the AMT system so much. They’ve taken the same basic concept of elevated maglev and dramatically simplified it to make it much more cost-effective.

The elevated maglev does seem to remove alot of issues since the base structures could be placed in highway medians or on rural land with minimal impact to the ground level use of the property below. If you have 20 feet clearance underneath the main track sections, a rancher or farmer can still use their land as they did pre-train. Its no different than land owners getting paid for a billboard to be installed on their property, the impact to ground level use is minimal.

Going further, using an elevated maglev, the main track sections can be “factory” built and trucked in for assembly on site just like TxDot does with key bridge components. This has got to be more efficient than building the whole structure on site.

I think what they did in Shanghi with Maglev should be seriously studied in Texas.

The cabin they’ve worked on so far is designed for operation around 80-120MPH, they’re expecting it’s first practical use to be in urban mass transit situations where they wouldn’t be enough long, straight track to get much past 100 mph.

As for whether the system is perfect, I guarantee you that it isn’t. No system is.

What I can say, however, is that they have built multiple sections of track, and the cost is as advertised. Can there be overruns or escalations as a project proceeds? Of course, but that’s only going to be worse when the solution is government driven. A private-sector approach is going to result in much greater efficiency and cost control.

I’d be very wary of AMT’s claims, their web site is very long on marketing blurb and very short on technical details. The high center of gravity and poor aerodynamics make operation at speeds of 150mph – never mind 300 – wholly implausible.

Even for commuter rail speeds, the cost estimates are not credible. Like all maglev systems, this one must run exclusively on aerial structures and those are expensive.

Note that conventional steel wheels rail lines equipped with modern signaling can support fast trains carrying hundreds of people each every 2-3 minutes very safely.

http://www.etcs.eu/en/nbs.htm

Locally, you need flexibility. That’s what trams, buses, jitneys, private cars, bicycles and walking are for.

As for modern mass-transit in the rest of the world, the primary problem are the distances involved and the accompanying lack of density to make mass-transit cost effective. The density issue may partially solve itself if the cost of gas resumes it’s sharp upward trend of the past few years, but the distance issue won’t go away.

For purposes of this discussion the primary differential is the speed limitation of conventional rail and perhaps the energy efficiency of the prime mover (locomotive engine). I wouldn’t write off conventional diesel-electric locomotives as significantly less efficient than all electric without seeing more data. Today’s class I railroads are extremely cost sensitive and would switch to electric power if it made economic sense.

All that said, mag-lev technology is certainly interesting. I’d be curious, though, if AMT’s target market is intercity freight and passenger transit or urban transit (passenger and/or freight). Also, how do their cost/benefit estimates for building and operation hold up for intercity transit as opposed to urban transit.

For one, here in Texas we don’t have the consideration of compatibility with an existing system; we don’t have electric railroads nor any room on the freight routes.

(Spain, as an example, can use its existing lines in conjunction with high speed lines so that off-network cities benefit from the new lines, too. Trains from Santander, for instance, go through a gauge-changer at Valladolid and run on the AVE line the rest of the way to Madrid. This type of operation, which partially explains Spain’s choice to go with conventional technology, is not possible in Texas.)

It would be nice, though, to see this AMT technology work in real-world service, because as of yet no one has chosen dumb-track maglev. The ODU installation is now a research project of that school’s engineering department.

I would like to see it work since it seems to solve a number of the shortcomings of maglev and conventional trains, as you note, but it currently remains unproven.

Keep it up with the series. It certainly provokes thought.