PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown I

[dugdogmaster]

Originally Posted by AaronPGH

Really? Then why pass off their north shore connector as an airport line when Maglev will be taking care of that? It'd be redundant.

Yes. What PJ said.

[Tombstoner]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Maglev is a high-speed train (reaching 250+ mph). From what I understand, it is not being proposed, nor feasible, to make frequent stops. I think it's just airport, downtown, Monroeville, Greensburg.

I understand that and can understand why it is less-than-desirable to make a stop so close to Downtown. It does seem like a stop in Oakland might be warrranted given its economic significance, however. Monroeville on the other hand....

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by AaronPGH

So they are planning on eventually having both Maglev and light rail lines to the airport? It seems like overkill to me with so few passengers at PIT anymore.

Originally Posted by Tombstoner

I understand that and can understand why it is less-than-desirable to make a stop so close to Downtown. It does seem like a stop in Oakland might be warrranted given its economic significance, however. Monroeville on the other hand....

The Port Authority and Maglev probably don't know what they're going to do exactly, yet.

I think what we need to remember is that the Maglev proposal for Pittsburgh is being developed as a feasibility test for long distance (40 to 600 mile trips), high-speed transrapid travel in the US. The Pittsburgh test market is to demonstrate its viability for intercity travel, once system extension occurs. It is not intended to serve the commuter purpose that a light rail system does.

[PGHFan]

The city could not have looked better last night during the NFL concert at Point State Park. Basking in the dusk sunlight, the downtown buildings were beautiful. The flyovers were also wonderful. A great great high definition moment!

[hyperion1110]

Originally Posted by pj3000

The Port Authority and Maglev probably don't know what they're going to do exactly, yet.

I think what we need to remember is that the Maglev proposal for Pittsburgh is being developed as a feasibility test for long distance (40 to 600 mile trips), high-speed transrapid travel in the US. The Pittsburgh test market is to demonstrate its viability for intercity travel, once system extension occurs. It is not intended to serve the commuter purpose that a light rail system does.

Precisely, pj3000. The benefit Maglev would bring to Pittsburgh is calculable! If they build the demonstration project here, and if its successful, Pittsburgh will become the nexus of a transportation system connecting the East Coast to the Greak Lakes region. With some 200 million people in these regions, Pittsburgh would have literally thousands of people passing through every day.

I like the location of the proposed Maglev stop downtown. But would it be interesting to reuse Mellon Arena as a station? I say this for two reasons. First, the station currently proposed seems to straddle Crosstown Blvd, which is where the park joining downtown and the hill is proposed. Personally, I think that park is an outstanding idea, both for the green space added and for the more intimate connection is brings between the two neighborhoods. As for my second point, to be honest, I like the Mellon Arena. I think it's a fascinating building, worthy of preservation by itself. Now, by all means, fill in the seas of asphalt with some high-density development. But the arena structure itself is marvelous to me. With a little remodeling, and perhaps a boarding platform annex, it would make a fantastic, retro-looking station for a new maglev system.

[AaronPGH]

Originally Posted by hyperion1110

Precisely, pj3000. The benefit Maglev would bring to Pittsburgh is calculable! If they build the demonstration project here, and if its successful, Pittsburgh will become the nexus of a transportation system connecting the East Coast to the Greak Lakes region. With some 200 million people in these regions, Pittsburgh would have literally thousands of people passing through every day.

But what about all the national HSR plans that are much further along already? What good is testing out Maglev for possible nationwide adoption if we've already spent our money building traditional high speed rail. This just sounds like a lot of competing plans and overlap going on.

I say pick one and stick to it. Why burn money planning all of these duplicate systems? We need one comprehensive plan.

Also, I LOVE your idea of using Mellon Arena as a station (if this whole thing happens). Why not make that an actual full scale transit hub while we're at it? Re-route the busway through it somehow too.

[Tombstoner]

Originally Posted by pj3000

The Port Authority and Maglev probably don't know what they're going to do exactly, yet.

I think what we need to remember is that the Maglev proposal for Pittsburgh is being developed as a feasibility test for long distance (40 to 600 mile trips), high-speed transrapid travel in the US. The Pittsburgh test market is to demonstrate its viability for intercity travel, once system extension occurs. It is not intended to serve the commuter purpose that a light rail system does.

I'm really not disagreeing with you on the goals of the proposal, so much as wondering out-loud whether Oakland makes sense within the Maglev framework itself. I understand that viability means maximizing use between cities (not as a commuter line). Frequency would never make it compete with local transit and, presumably, costs would discourage people from using it as such. But Pittsburgh presents an interesting dilemma--you have what is essentially PA's third largest economic hub (in some senses, a city) 3-4 miles away from its second largest hub (Downtown). If Oakland-Downtown transportation were seamless and everyone from the university/research community could zip downtown to catch the Maglev, that would reduce the problem, but even then, you are adding a lot of time to a means of transportation predicated in the idea of saving time. I would think that "viability" would entail tapping the important Oakland market for cross-state travel. If Oakland were a city rather than a neighborhood, would that change anything (a thought experiment: would a high-speed train from San Francisco to Sacramento stop in "that other Oakland," or would it assume that folks from Berkeley would take BART into SF to catch it?)? Just sayin'...

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Tombstoner

I'm really not disagreeing with you on the goals of the proposal, so much as wondering out-loud whether Oakland makes sense within the Maglev framework itself. I understand that viability means maximizing use between cities (not as a commuter line). Frequency would never make it compete with local transit and, presumably, costs would discourage people from using it as such. But Pittsburgh presents an interesting dilemma--you have what is essentially PA's third largest economic hub (in some senses, a city) 3-4 miles away from its second largest hub (Downtown). If Oakland-Downtown transportation were seamless and everyone from the university/research community could zip downtown to catch the Maglev, that would reduce the problem, but even then, you are adding a lot of time to a means of transportation predicated in the idea of saving time. I would think that "viability" would entail tapping the important Oakland market for cross-state travel. If Oakland were a city rather than a neighborhood, would that change anything (a thought experiment: would a high-speed train from San Francisco to Sacramento stop in "that other Oakland," or would it assume that folks from Berkeley would take BART into SF to catch it?)? Just sayin'...

I know what your saying, Tombstoner. I think that it just comes down to a matter of efficiency; meaning that there cannot be two high-speed transrapid stations within a couple miles of each other. In this case it would be, either build a station downtown or build a station in Oakland... can't do both.

Like you said, if Oakland were its own city located in say, Monroeville, then the dilemma is solved.

[Steel Boy]

I don't see Maglev ever being built between downtown and Oakland. As I understand it, it's an elevated system that needs pylons and some right-of-way. I can't see how any neighborhood is going to welcome what is esseantially an elevated train going through.

I actually don't see Maglev being built here at all. How much might it cost to acquire the land? How long will the lawsuits go on about eminent domain? How will a routing be decided when nobody would want it whizzing past their home when the only stations are downtown, Monroeville, Greensburg, and the airport? It's really not feasible.

[Gilamonster]

FINALLY! A refreshingly realistic viewpoint about Maglev. Thank you Steel Boy.

[Austinlee]

I used to be a big Maglev booster; But I have changed my stance. I just don't see how it could possibly end up being cost effective.

[Wiz Khalifa]

I just don't understand all of the sudden focus and fixation on Maglev again, when the White House recently released an comprehensive HSR plan for the United States. Last time I checked, these two concepts were two completely incompatible methods of doing the same thing.

I read somewhere that China already tested Maglev vs. HSR and ended up deciding that HSR was still much more cost effective, albeit a bit slower than its raised-track cousin.

So combining that news with the White House press release on the HSR network, either the gov is unaware of the Chinese study or this is a last ditch effort to explore all possible alternatives until the inevitable focus is completely shifted toward conventional HSR. I am guessing it is the latter but who knows.

[Grimacista]

The Maglev is just going to be a huge boondoggle and cash pit that will never come about. The money that has been spent on this and will continue to be spent on it could be better served updating rail infrastructure in the region that is compatible with rail around the country.

And, seriously, if this thing has 4 stops, how many people need to go from the Airport to Greensburg every day?

[bruchaus]

This is where we're heading:

[pj3000]

...

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Grimacista

And, seriously, if this thing has 4 stops, how many people need to go from the Airport to Greensburg every day?

Right... but again, that's not really the overall purpose of the proposed Maglev development. See above.


I'm not sure right now if I support this thing or not. But, I think we all need to try to understand the big picture of a national transportation system and realize that Maglev is really not about solving Pittsburgh's transit problems specifically.

[dugdogmaster]

Originally Posted by bruchaus

This is where we're heading:

One of the funniest episodes, ever! Imo, at least.

[Grimacista]

I understand that the Maglev is not about solving PGH's transportation problems but this project just is a waste of money.

How many millions are they going to pour into this project to realize that it is cost-prohibitive on a regional/national scale? That money would be much better served if the feds wrote a check for some engineers to re-design rail curves in the mountains to allow higher speeds, or by acquiring more land for railroad rights of way to build an additional track.

[hyperion1110]

I am no economist; nor am I a transportation expert. However, from a commonsense approach, there are two important points to address. The first point, concerning economics, is that this system is not cost-effective. While I agree that the first few projects will be quite expensive compared to traditional high speed rail, I think it's unreasonable to assume that a concerted government effort to build a national maglev system would be more expensive than HSR. Either endeavor, HSR or maglev, done on a national scale, would be a MASSIVE investment, and almost certainly of equal magnitude. Now, my second point concerns physics. Presumably, the proposed maglev system would use superconductors to provide both lift and some portion of the propulsion. As superconductors have zero electrical resistance, every amp of current put into the system would go directly to lift/propulsion...secondary systems notwithstanding, maglev would be 100% efficient at converting electrical energy into mechanical energy.

So, it's like this. First, a national maglev system really wouldn't be more expensive than HSR to build. And second, the cost of operation should, in principle, be significantly reduced. Moreover, maglev has several advantages that HSR is unlikely to equal. For instance, maglev, as planned, is notably faster. Indeed, there is no reason why maglev could not be significantly faster. This means lower transit times, increasing competition for rapid long-distance travel, thereby lower the cost of such transportation. Maglev is also capable of handling higher grades than HSR. A national rail system will eventually have to cross some very large mountains, so that higher grade potential is a strong point in favor of maglev. Lastly, HSR tends to be deisel powered, as I understand it. And as we all know, internal combustion is not very efficient at converting chemical energy into mechanical energy. Even if the HSR would be electricially powered, which would add significantly to the cost of the system, it is still grossly inefficient because of friction and longer routes (because of a lesser grade capability).

In short, maglev and HSR should have cost parity when constructing the system. And maglev would be faster and cheaper to run. To me, the choice is obvious.

[qwho]

Weird, I was reading this forum, and I got this in an email from corporate.