1. Benefits of Magnetic Levitation Railways:
A Comprehensive Approach to Socio-Economic Issues
Danielle Stellrecht
28 January 2013
Senior Research Project
Submitted in partial satisfaction of a B.A. in
Urban Studies and Planning
University of California, San Diego
Abstract:
Magnetic Levitation transportation, MagLev, was created in the 1970s in the United
States as a new form of transportation. Using magnetic propulsion the MagLev has no
moving parts or friction of other forms of transportation making it the most efficient,
fastest and cleanest public transportation available. It has been adopted in Japan,
Germany and China, while small rails are being built now in the United States. Extensive
research on large systems of MagLev as a central mode transportation has not been
conducted. Considering the struggling United States economy, health, social and
environmental ills caused by our current transportation systems, this study offers an
1

2. extensive MagLev rail system as a solution to current socio-economic issues.
Keywords: MagLev, Socio-economic, public transportation, clean energy, smart growth
Introduction
Magnetic levitation transportation railway, also referred to as MagLev, is a high speed,
efficient and clean energy alternative to current modes of transportation. It operates as a
suspended rail car between two strong magnets and can reach speeds of up to 500 mph (United
States MagLev Coalition 2006). Developed in the 1960s by the United States government, the
technology was then given to other countries (Senate Hearing 1990). Currently, MagLev systems
operate in Germany, Japan and China. Efforts are under way to develop MagLev systems within
the United States. Developers are working mainly on large popular routes such as Anaheim,
California to Las Vegas Nevada or Baltimore, Maryland to Washington D.C (Louis Berger
2003). Supporters claim that MagLev is great for lowering emissions and it can help with the
decongestion of traffic. Opponents claim the MagLev is too expensive and that there is no way to
guarantee ridership. A lack of evidence shows proof that opponents and supporters are making
claims to ideas that are unfounded. After corresponding with Kevin Coates, the executive
director of the North American MagLev Transport Institute, he affirmed that most people are not
knowledgeable about the true prospects of MagLev. This study aims to provide reasonable
possibilities of what MagLev systems can and cannot do through an examination of current
2

3. systems of transportation and comparing probable outcomes.
Economically and environmentally, MagLev appears to be a better choice for
transportation. By examining data, as well as doing some of my own calculations, this study
outlines why MagLev as a dominant form of transportation could benefit America.
Loss of blue collar jobs and outsourcing has led to increased unemployment (Thompson
2011). Dependency on oil and failure to incorporate new forms of technology has made the
United States one of the countries with the highest per capita emission rates (Jorgenson and
Clark 2012, EPA 2011). Government subsidizing for suburbanization combined with cuts in
public transportation have made a personal vehicle the only option for some folks to conduct
their daily activities (Gottleib 2007). This study addresses these problems by showing how
MagLev can create jobs, boost the economy, lower our dependence on oil, and decrease carbon
dioxide emissions. In order to have the most positive impact, the MagLev system design,
implementation and policy developing and maintaining it, must be a cohesive operation with
similar goals and understand. This study explores the ways in which just building the train in any
environment with an arbitrary fare will not gain the desired results. By examining qualitative and
quantitative data, this study is able to outline what components are needed beyond the financing
and construction of the MagLev to make it successful and the dominant form of transportation in
the United States.
This study proposes the only way MagLev can positively influence the United States to
benefit from a new form of clean energy, is to make it the dominant form of transportation
through MagLev focused policy and changes to current transportation infrastructure. Policies
3

4. focused on increasing ridership and growing the transit system are needed. This study will
address how this is possible. Encouraging law makers to make sensible decisions based on
research and specific needs of Americans is vital to not wasting money on a system that is poorly
designed and not user friendly. The data analyzed in this study outlines the specific needs and
policy changes that would be needed to make a profitable and user-friendly MagLev system.
Literature Review
Since 2001, over 50,000 manufacturing facilities in the United States have closed
down (McIntyre and Wiegley 2012). The Bureau of Labor Statistics notes the average
unemployment rate for 2012 was 8.1% for the United States (United States Department of Labor
2013). As blue collar jobs disappear, most people need the skills to fill white collar positions.
The education needed for those positions, requires the ability to follow through with at least four
years of stability to finish the program. Unfortunately, the statistics show that college graduation
levels are becoming stagnant. With blue collar jobs disappearing at an alarming rate in the
United States, while new manufacturing jobs are not being created, people are being completely
eliminated from the workforce. Focus on education to earn higher degrees in order to fill the
white collar jobs still available, requires the ability to follow through with at least four years of
stability to finish the program. Unfortunately, the statistics show that college graduation levels
are becoming stagnant. With a large portion of the population without college degrees there is
still a high demand for blue collar or lower level service industry jobs.
Although high school graduates are attending college in record numbers, four in 10 are
not adequately prepared for the course load that awaits them, and are thus forced into
4

5. remedial classes when they start college. This fact contributes to a staggering number of
students pursuing a bachelor’s degree -- 42 percent, according to the infographic -- to
drop out. This number is about 30 percent higher at the two-year or community college
level.
Workers without a degree are two times as likely to be unemployed -- a statistic that is
consistent with Census Bureau data that puts the unemployment rate of college graduates
aged 25 and over at 4.1 percent, compared to 8.7 percent of high school graduates.
That said, a Pew Fiscal Analysis Initiative study published in February found that college
graduates and advanced degree holders, once they are unemployed, are just as vulnerable
as high school dropouts to long-term joblessness (Huffington Post 2012)
This report from the Huffington Post is a reminder that not only are blue collar jobs in
danger, but lost white collar jobs are not returning as well. Finding work is equally difficult for
those white collar workers with degrees as well. Furthermore, the students who had to drop out
of school are now left with student debt they have to pay off while working lower paying
positions not requiring a degree.
The literature shows jobs are needed for those who are both college educated and those
who are not. Some kind of project that combines new white color jobs as well as growing blue
collar jobs, could address that issue. Furthermore, other studies suggest the United States is
falling behind severely in research and development in the science and technology fields.
Prompting new technology, as well as creating manufacturing jobs here in the United States
would help the people who are currently out of work or for future college graduates and non-
graduates. “ The new National Intelligence Estimate should be a wake-up call for U.S. politicians
and policymakers, but there is as yet little evidence that they grasp the urgency of halting
5

6. America’s decline in manufacturing” (Thompson 2011).
Beyond the need for jobs in the United States is the need to address the growing health
issues related to pollution. Increased levels of greenhouse gases have caused significant increases
in not just respiratory illness but diseases once thought to be unrelated, are being traced back to
air pollution (Hankey, Marshall and Brauer 2012). Only China outranks the United States in
metric tons of emissions (worldbank.org). These illnesses carry greater weight than only being
bad for health and the environment. There are added costs to the health industry, as well as a
significant cost to those affected because of medical bills and lost pay. Health costs from
respiratory illness in expected to reach $832.9 Billion by 2021 (Swartz 2013). Expenses to the
government, private corporations and individuals caused by illness from unnecessary pollution,
is money that could be reinvested in economic growth.
Studies also show that people are not equally affected by these diseases from
transportation pollution (Kunzli 2003). People who live in hubs of transportation or near traffic
have higher occurrences of illness and exposure to toxic pollution. Generally those who live in
more polluted areas, are low-income and minority populations and unfairly receive the brunt of
the effects. This type of inequality is referred to as “environmental racism” (Bullard 1999). The
placement or displacement of people by design in these less desirable neighborhoods has many
costs, not just their health. People already in a tight financial situation will bear more financial
costs to suffer the health consequences due to the location of residence.
The United States is also a place of “urban sprawl” making areas less accessible to people
without a car (Gottleib 2007). This design of houses surrounding an urban center keeps people
6

7. segregated, since people who are low income are forced to stay within the city where they can
take advantage of public transportation. In the suburbs, public transportation is so far spread out,
that the financial and time costs are too high to choose public transit over a private passenger
vehicle. Choosing to create smart growth as the Environmental Protection Agency mentioned
incorporates the ideas of Jane Jacobs’s ideas for mixed-use planning. Smart growth is policy to
reverse the effects of urban sprawl. Mixed-use planning then is the idea of designing cities to
incorporate more facets of life within walking distance rather than having a city center
surrounded by suburbs. Both “mixed use and “smart growth” are discussed further in the finding
and analysis. Jacobs argues that mixed-used planning enables a walkable community (Jacobs
1992). Walkable communities take traffic off the street and enable for residential and business
areas to exist together. Although the EPA discusses the need for smart growth through mixed use
planning, they do not specifically mention how it ties into transportation planning (EPA 2013). If
people were able to stop for groceries walking home from the commuter MagLev system, it
would eliminate the need for people to commute to work on a MagLev system then get back in
their vehicles to run errands. None of the literature seems to address MagLev, or any other better
solution, to redesigning cities in order to change the way we overuse vehicles in our lives. Lastly,
concerning mixed-use in terms of health, mixed-use development promoting walking could help
with the overweight epidemic plaguing America (Center for Disease Control 2012). Designing
transportation in a way where public transportation and walking become easier than private
vehicles has the potential of bettering health through more exercise for the American population.
Discussions about the MagLev system within the United States are very debatable. Some
7

8. researchers believe the government is not taking a serious enough stance on MagLev
transportation. Although Obama is noted saying that MagLev transportation needs to be
seriously considered, Obama’s transportation bill only included high speed rail funding and no
funding for MagLev (Coates 2009, United States MagLev Coalition 2012). Many politicians
believe the MagLev transportation systems are too expensive to invest in “but then admitted to
having no access to technology specifics or actual costs (Coates 2009). The information
politicians have overlooked when confronted with sticker shock is that “MagLevs are cost
effective because capital costs are recovered through annual maintenance costs that are about
30% less than traditional high-speed rail” (Coates 2009).
Data on the benefits of current MagLev systems are lacking. What the literature does
provide is the need for lowered emissions, people gravitate toward private vehicles, public
transportation friendly cities are needed and decision makes are misinformed of the cost of
MagLev. What matters is that “MagLev systems fit seamlessly into the vision of developing
first-rate, financially sustainable and livable pedestrian communities that enhance rather than
compromise, citizen mobility and health. It’s about time we got with the program” (Coates
2009). This study intends to detail why we should develop on this idea of how MagLev be
implemented in the United States.
Research Strategy
My research strategy is aimed creating a basis for policy proposal. The majority of my
data was taken from the WorldBank.org. The World Bank offers data on countries in a table
form by year that was easy to understand and analyze. I chose five countries to base my
8

9. comparisons on; Japan, Germany, China, India and the United States. I am studying how
MagLev would be incorporated in the United States so it was included. Japan, Germany and
China are included because they have MagLev systems. India is included because it is
comparable to the other China in terms of development, population and economy but lacks a
MagLev system (Bajaj 2011). India is a stabilizer in the data, so only countries having MagLev,
are not being compared to one country without MagLev. This data compared emissions,
population and ridership in order to see differences between the countries and helped to point out
inconsistencies and highlight areas of concentration where the United States falls behind other
countries in prioritizing public transportation.
In order to address the concerns of ridership, the study found commonalities between
cities with high public transportation rates in the population. This information is significant
because building a MagLev system without proper infrastructure to promote ridership would be
fateful to the project. This data of how public transit prospers in some cities while not in others is
most important for policy change specifics as to how the policies should be written and what
should be included.
Lastly, the research centered on MagLev specific data. After understanding the United
States is negatively impacted by being an auto-dependent nation and how to encourage public
transit ridership in the United States, it was vital to understand why MagLev specifically is the
best choice for technology in transportation planning. This portion of the research strategy
focuses on MagLev specific benefits compared to other modes of transportation. Emissions
control, finances, health and time management are some of the topics covered as to why MagLev
9

10. is better than building more freeways, expanding bus transit or high speed rail operations. The
findings show through quantitative data the ways MagLev is the most beneficial route to follow
in the future of transportation.
After choosing analyzing the data, thus far I chose not to include research based on
existing MagLev systems for two reasons. First, the information is lacking. MagLev systems in
full operation are too new to offer empirical data as to how it has affected the cities it is located
in. It would not be helpful to have partial or inclusive information from unreliable sources.
Secondly, the systems are small and include only one route. Other data analyzed suggests one
MagLev route is not enough to influence economic or environmental impacts as will be
discussed in the findings. Instead, this study takes from a broader range of information about
issues pertaining to public transportation in large developed comparable countries to the United
States and then examines why MagLev, specifically would be the most beneficial if correctly
implemented in full force. The information is then organized to discuss environmental, economic
and policy implications.
Findings and Analysis
Environmental
Lowering emission rates has been a key concern of the United Nations (UNEP 2012).
MagLev transit systems operate without any emissions whatsoever (United States MagLev
Coalition 2012). Comparing the United States, Japan, Germany, India and China helps to place
where the United States ranks in comparison to emissions from developed countries and
10

11. countries with MagLev systems in place. Table 1 shows the change in metric tons of carbon
dioxide emissions polluting in each country from 2003 and then in 2009.
From Table 1 there are some observations to be understood. If one MagLev system was
enough to have a positive impact on a county’s lowered emissions it would follow that China,
Germany and Japan would all have lowered emissions rather than increased emissions. Instead
China had an increase in emissions nearly doubling from 2003 4.5 million metric tons to 7.69
million metric tons in 2009. China’s Shanghai MagLev was built in 2004, therefore if MagLev
had been a positive impact we would have seen a decrease in emissions from 2003 to 2009 rather
than an increase. Conclusively, one MagLev system is not enough to decrease emissions as seen
in China. There is also a decrease in the United States from 2003 to 2009. The US does not have
MagLev but still saw a small decrease from 5.68 million metric tons to 5.3 million metric tons.
India increased from 1.28 million metric tons to 1.98 million metric tons, Japan decreased from
1.24 million metric tons to 1.1 million metric tons and Germany decreased as well from 835, 658
metric tons to 734, 599 metric tons.
Table 1. Metric Tons of C02
What should also be taken from the graph is the United States is still very high in
comparison to the other four countries. It takes second place for highest emissions in the table. It
11

12. is important though to not only consider raw numbers. The emissions created per person are
more important in understanding how much each person in the country is actually contributing to
having such high emissions. Table 2 outlines the per capita emissions between the five countries
between from 2003 and again in 2009. The emissions per capita shows the United States
embarrassingly high in emissions per capita compared to the other four countries in the sample.
China increased emissions from 3.5 MT to 5.8 MT, Germany decreased from 10.1 to 9.0 MT,
India increased from 1.2 MT to 1.6 MT, Japan decreased from 9.7 MT to 8.6 MT and the United
States also decreased from 19.6 MT to 17.3MT. It is important here to observe the differences in
emissions per capita and total tons of emissions per country. Raw numbers of emissions as
produced from Table 1 can convolute the true issue by making it seem that the United States was
comparable in emissions to other countries. In reality, we can see from Table 2 how the United
States actually produces twice as much carbon dioxide emission per person than comparable
developed countries per person.
Table 2. Metric tons (MT) of Carbon Dioxide emissions per capita (WorldBank.org)
The rate of emissions per capita led to researching and comparing the habits of
Americans which place them at the worst compared to the other countries. The emissions listed
12

13. though are for total carbon dioxide emission. This study is focused on decreasing transportation
related emissions. It is important to understand how much of these emissions come from
transportation sources. The Environmental Protection Agency reports
[i]n 2012, transportation contributed approximately 27 percent of total U.S. Greenhouse
gas emissions. Transportation is also the largest end-use source of greenhouse gas
emissions (including direct emissions and emissions from electricity use), and accounts
for 45 percent increase in total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from 1990-2010 (EPA
2011).
With transportation emissions being a little over one quarter of emissions produced in the
United States it is important to uncover the transportation habits of Americans compared to their
counterparts. Table 3 compares the 2006 number of passengers carried per year on railways per
kilometer and passengers carried per year on roads, while Table 4 shows the 2006 raw
population data. It is important to show these graphs side by side to visually show how the
United States compares in rates of ridership and private vehicle use in terms of total population.
From looking at Table 3 and Table 4, there are critical observations to be observed. With
the exception of the United States, the rest of the country’s population, railway use and road use
rank in order. This means that if the United States is excluded just for the sake of ranking
statistics it follows that China is first across the board, then India, Japan and Germany. China has
the highest population at 1,311,020,000, highest ridership at 635,327 and highest road use at
1,013,085. India follows with a population of 1,157,038,539 with also the second highest rate of
railway use at 615,634 million per kilometer (road information was not available for India).
13

14. Japan follows with the third highest population at 127,756,000, then third for railways at
249,029 million per kilometer and (2004 used since 2006 was unavailable, assuming for natural
growth increase) 947,562 road passenger per kilometer. Lastly, Germany has the lowest
population total at 82,376,451, then passengers on railways at 74,727 million per kilometer and
passengers using vehicle use at 964,352 million per kilometer. The United States does not follow
this pattern at all. If included, the United States would rank third for population total at
298,379,912, last for 8,660 million railway passengers per kilometer and first for 7,940,003
million road passengers per kilometer. The United States use of roads is seven times that of
China’s use of roads, while China’s population is nearly four and a half times the population of
the United States. Germany has a slight decrease in population which may account for the
decrease in road miles but they have increased their railway miles which counters the idea that
population is the explanation.
Table 3. Comparison of Rail v. Road Transportation (WorldBank.org)
Table 4. Total Population (WorldBank.org)
We can gather thus far from the tables provided, the United States has the highest rates of
14

15. emissions per capita, highest vehicle use, and lowest railway use compared to the other five
developed countries. The United States has public transportation, so what are the current
transportation habits of Americans?
Between 1990 and 2010 the average daily miles traveled increased 34% (EPA 2011). In
2009, 86.1% of Americans commuted in a private vehicle, while 5% used public transit and 3%
walked (US Census 2011). 33 million people have commutes identified as “stretch commutes”
which is defined as a commute over 50 miles each way (Statistic Brain 2012). Of these stretch
commuters, 96% are done in personal vehicles rather than using public transportation (Statistic
Brain 2012). Table 5 comes from the Statistic Brain website using the data from the National
Household Travel Survey done by the US Department of Transportation’s Bureau of
Transportation Statistics.
From Table 5, it is evident that the majority of the population travels less than 35 miles to
work. When considering any type of public transportation then aimed at lowering emissions, it is
important to consider who the market is. If the majority of the market commutes less than 35
miles daily, then current speculation for the long distance MagLev systems currently being
discussed would not be beneficial for the daily commuter traffic if there were to only be two
stops 200 miles apart as proposed.
Table 5. American Commute Miles/Population Percentage (Statistic Brain 2012)
American Commute Distance (One Way) Percent
15

16. 1-5 Miles 29 %
6-10 Miles 22 %
11-15 Miles 17 %
16-20 Miles 10 %
21-25 Miles 7 %
26-30 Miles 5 %
31-35 Miles 3 %
35 + Miles 8 %
Table 6 then shows where commuters are traveling to and from in what types of
landscapes. As is shown, one third of commuters are shown traveling from one suburb to another
suburb. City to city commuters are not even accounted for on the list, which is what MagLev
proposals are currently.
Table 6. Commuter Statics of Where Commuters are Traveling (Statistic Brain 2012)
Commuter Statistics Data (# of people)
Total number of commuters in the U.S. 128.3 Million
Suburb to Suburb Commuters 40.8 Million
Within City Commuters 27.4 Million
16

17. Rural to Rural Commuters 20.4 Million
Suburb to City Commuters 18.2 Million
Central City to Suburb Commuters 8 Million
Outer Suburb to Inner Suburb Commuters 3.6 Million
Outer Central City to Inner Suburb 2.6 Million
Central City to Rural "Extreme Commuters" 0.4 Million
Table 5 and 6 are imperative in the design for any type of transportation system to be
effective. Firstly in terms of taking public transportation in general over private vehicles, only
43% of Americans live within 1 kilometer of public transit where in Germany 88% is within 1
kilometer of public transportation (Jaffe 2012). Secondly, the proposals for the current MagLev
systems run from large city center to another large city center. Projected MagLev projects
include San Diego to Los Angeles to San Francisco, Anaheim to Los Angles or Chicago to
Dallas (Retzman 1998). The projected projects could help eliminate air transportation emissions
and are still ultimately may also lighten traffic. On the contrary, the average daily commute is
not from large city to large city but from suburb to suburb. Judging from the tables, it seems
evident that shorter intra-city or regional commuting could produce more ridership based on
daily need rather than longer distance intercity transportation.
MagLev, as an answer to emissions problems in the United States can benefit if the
policies in place are appropriate. MagLev has zero emissions and consumes 2% of what a typical
17

18. car would and can get as low as 10,000 miles/gallon or can run purely off cleanly harvested
electricity (Powell and Danby 2005). Currently our other dominant forms of transportation
include buses, cars, trains and airplanes. All of these modes burn fossil fuel, and produce carbon
dioxide emissions. Implementing one rail, as in the case of China, Japan and Germany, does not
create consistent results of lowered emissions as seen in Table 1. For this reason, and more to
follow, I argue a larger system that permeates everyday needs, expanded into larger areas
promotes more day to day use. Lowering emissions as more and more cars come off the road is a
side effect of maneuvering Americans into thinking of new way to travel. Small rail projects
have not been enough to curb emissions; therefore, the next step would be to create a larger
system. This will only be useful though with positive policy changes implemented toward real
progress away from an auto dependent nation
Economics
Money talks, or so the saying goes. Making money a financial enticement to shift use
from automobiles to public transportation is possible. In Germany, public officials make public
transportation more attractive through policy changes.
German public policies are designed to discourage car ownership, driving, and parking.
Unlike in the United States, where the federal gas tax has been stagnant since 1993, Germans
pay very high fuel costs — with 60 percent going to taxes. (Sales tax on vehicles is also four
times higher there.) And while American drivers fail to cover highway costs with user fees,
with the Highway Trust Fund dipping into the general budget more every year, Germans
cover 2.5 times government road expenditures through taxes (Jaffe 2012).
In comparison, in San Diego current February 2012 gas prices are between $4 and $5 per
18

19. gallon, as seen this week at a local gas station. The current average US tax on gas is 0.495 cents per
gallon (American Petroleum Institute 2012). That puts our tax at under 10% average in San Diego. If
the average in San Diego now, for example is $4.50/gallon and we were charged 60% rather than the
0.495 cent average, out average would be $6.41/gallon. Sources prove when gas prices go up,
ridership of mass public transit increase (Krauss 2008). Germany also uses the money from taxes to
cover transit expenses. Policy could dictate that gas taxes be routed partially to increasing MagLev
systems.
Policy on fare prices could also manipulate ridership through attractive fare rates.
Shanghai’s MagLev train the ride is 18.95 miles. They charge 50 Yuan per single trip ($8.02 US
dollars) or 80 Yuan for roundtrip ($12.83 US dollars) (Shanghai MagLev Transportation
Development Co. LTD 2005). Because this study argues primarily for MagLev as a dominant form of
transportation, this will be analyzed looking at the round trip cost because commuters need a round
trip service. Using the roundtrip service of the Shanghai system, patrons pay $0.34/mile and the trip
lasts 8 minutes each way (Shanghai MagLev Transportation Development Co. LTD 2005). The
United States average passenger car miles per gallon is 22.4 (Project America 2008). At current gas
prices, using $4.50 per gallon figure, the cost of vehicle use is $0.20/mile. If gas taxes were inflated
though policy similar to Germany, the cost of vehicle use would be $0.29. Still both, with or without
the 60% tax, personal vehicle use is less expensive than taking MagLev compared to Shanghai’s rate.
Current bus fares in San Diego are $2.00 which is cheaper than a private auto mobile use if going
further than 10 miles. Unfortunately, convenience and time saved seem to win out over
environmental consciousness; otherwise, commuters over 10 miles would be taking the bus route for
19

20. financial benefits.
In New York, unlimited subway and bus transfers are only $29 week or $2.50 per single trip.
New York has the highest percentage of public transportation use in the United States followed by a
distant second, San Francisco. The average daily ridership in New York is 5.3 million passengers and
they service 660 miles of passenger rails (MTA 2013). For the use of this study, I would like to
outline a potential financial outlook for MagLev using the unlimited price of $29/week. From Table
5, I am going to assume 15 miles round trip daily for an average commuter. 15 miles falls in the
second largest category percentage of commuter length trips (round trip) and it would be just
beyond what may be considered walk-able. Assume a five day work week at 15 miles per day makes
75 miles of commuting for the week. This breaks the fare down to $0.40. This is still more expensive
than an average car mile per gallon cost. Approximately 50% of the population in New York does
not own a vehicle; therefore they must still be willing to pay a higher cost of transportation (Systra
Engineering 2012)
Examining both Shanghai and New York public transfer fares compared to the less
expensive cost of vehicle ownership, it is evident the public transportation is more expensive than
private transportation. Policies and fare rates would have to offer major financial and convenience
advantages to taking MagLev over personal vehicles. The need to drive down costs does not seem
financially beneficial at first glance. Many different sources claim projected costs MagLev systems to
are anywhere between $20 million to $40 million per mile to build depending on landscape and
which technology of MagLev is used. If a vehicle costs $0.20 per mile to operate, the fares of the
20

21. MagLev need to compete with that. If the average commute is 15 miles per day, as mentioned just
for example, then each person’s fare is approximately $3.00, if they are charged $0.20 per mile
equivalent to the cost of the car. MagLev operating costs are $0.03 per passenger mile, while planes
are $0.15 per passenger mile. For Maglev there is still a $0.17 per person per mile profit. In the case
of New York for example, if one were to add in the average of 15 miles per person at an average of
5.3 million people using the public transit every day multiplied by the $0.17 per person per mile
profit yields a $1,351,500 profit per day. If the average cost per mile is $30 million and 660 miles
were redone, the cost would be $19.8 billion to complete the project. This projection shows the
project paying for itself within four years.
In addition to potential profit, saving people money, and encouraging cleaner transportation
through the persuasion of financial benefits, building a MagLev system would further boost the
economy through job and business growth. Manufacturing jobs in the United States have been lost
to China at a rate of 50,000 per month between 2000 and 2010 (Thompson 2011). As mentioned
previously, the United States unemployment rate is at 8.1% and college graduates are not getting the
jobs they trained for in school. Investment in public transportation is vital to creating jobs and
boosting economic growth. For every $10 million dollars invested short term in transportation 570
jobs are created. It is estimated for every $1 Billion invested in public transit 36,000 jobs American
jobs are accessed (Hanley 2012). Hanley’s projection of jobs includes the access to jobs unrelated to
transit through creating transportation to people who otherwise would not be able to get to these
jobs. The Baltimore Draft Environmental Impact Study to create MagLev from claims after the
completion of MagLev system their operations and maintenance would employ 430 people per year.
21

22. (The Louis Berger Group 2003). Using the same averages in previous calculations of $30 million per
mile to build a MagLev system, and the statistic of 570 jobs created for every $10 million invested in
public transit, for every mile of MagLev track created and average of 1,170 jobs would be created.
The creation of jobs by the government not only saves the state from investing in unemployment
insurance but they gain taxes state and federal taxes as well. As previously stated, the government
can also turn a profit from MagLev technology specifically even after matching the cost of passenger
vehicle travel.
Policy Change
It is evident that MagLev can lower emissions and can be profitable while financially
competitive with personal vehicle use. Most importantly though is the issue of ridership. If a
substantial number of people do not switch from personal vehicle use, there would not be lowered
emissions and the rails would be running without people paying for the maintenance cost. So what
do areas with high public transportation ridership look like?
New York is rated number one in the country for “walkability” (Walk Score 2013).
“Walkability is a measurement of the transportation and recreation opportunities for pedestrians,
and considers pedestrian safety, convenience, and route aesthetics” (Center for Disease Control
2012). Having a high walkabillity rating includes both “smart growth” and “mixed used zoning”.
“Smart growth means building urban, suburban and rural communities with housing and
transportation choices near jobs, shops and schools” (Smart Growth America 2010). Mixed Used
zoning is how government implements “smart growth” through policy. New Yorkers, for example
22

23. can have short walks to the market, or it is more likely they are closer to public transit that can
quickly and efficiently get them to the market. Due to urban sprawl, the propensity for people to
move out of the city center and into the suburbs, takes people out of walking distance to most shops,
jobs and public transit (Gottleib 2007). It puts people in a position of needing a car, rather than the
option to go without. In comparing the United States to Germany, Germany has three times more
public transit service and 88% of Germans live within 1 kilometer of public transit where in the
United States it is 43% (Jaffe 2012). This reiterates the point that not only does mixed used zoning
Policies need to be pushed harder, but intra-city MagLev systems reaching connecting suburbs to
suburbs are needed.
Without thoughtful policy to create the conditions where public transportation thrives,
MagLev would have less of an opportunity to thrive. The technology and availability alone are
not enough to be useful to the majority of the population. Consideration as to increasing
ridership, ridership habits and researching the best examples of working public transportation is
vital to introducing a new way of thinking of transportation.
Conclusion
A new form of mass clean public transportation is clearly needed in the United States. A
total mindset change for the entire population is necessary if we are to reverse the damage done
by private vehicle focused urban-sprawl inducing transportation planning. Regional planning
would need to focus on creating rail systems that are most useful and inclusive to the majority of
the population. Collaboration between all levels of government, with private corporations and
23

24. academics would be necessary to truly make progressive socio-economic change around public
transportation in the United States (Sallis 2004). Without the best knowledge of what the nation
needs in terms of public transportation or the habits of the areas of the most used public
transportation shared between them, policies may be less effectual.
Through the literature review, it was outlined how the United States economy is being
affected both by the costs of emissions, the loss of jobs and the inability of law-makers to
understand the benefits of MagLev. The findings and analysis featured data outlining where the
United States stands as a developed country in terms of public transportation, the potential for
more fiscally and emissions lowering transit, and the need for public policy cooperation in the
development of a MagLev system.
This study has shown how MagLev is a cleaner alternative to current fossil fuel burning
transportation because it has zero emissions. MagLev can create more jobs than other forms of
transportation because it creates more jobs at a higher rate because of its expense. MagLev
would also create different levels of jobs to cater to both blue and white collar workers. MagLev
runs cheaper person per mile costs than planes and buses as noted in the research and as seen
through the projected figures, could match the low cost of private vehicle per mile costs and still
turn a profit. If policymakers use “smart growth” similar to Germany and New York they would
encourage more ridership and create more walkable cities at the same time.
With this study, policymakers and developers should have a better idea of the benefits of
MagLev over other forms of transportation. The most significant understanding through this
study is the importance of truly understanding the transportation needs of the country and how
24

25. they should best be answered. This study counters the current developer ideas to begin placing
MagLev on long distance routes with two stops from one large city to another city. Clearly,
through this study, it is shown the majority of commuters travel from suburb to suburb in less
than 35 miles while only 43% of the population is within one kilometer of public transportation
and it would likely cost more to take public transit than a public vehicle. When taking these basic
discoveries from this study, policy makers will be able to make better decisions when faced with
transportation bills in the future, what modes would be the most beneficial and how they should
be implemented.
Although this study is imperfect because averages were used rather than specific to each
route data, it addressed the needs of the nation and through data analysis was able to provide
suggestions and realistic calculations as to how MagLev can be a solution to those issues. By
articulating more than construction of MagLev systems to benefit socio-economic status of
Americans, this study strongly advocates for cooperating policy to make the best decisions of
how to implement MagLev in the future.
25

26. 26

27. Bibliography
Subcommittee on Transportation, Aviation and Materials of the Committee on Science, Space
and Technology U.S. House of Representatives One Hundred First Congress. 1990. H.R.
4549-the Magnetic Levitation Transportation and Competitiveness Act of 1990. 7 June.
American Petroleum Institute. "Motor Fuel Taxes.", accessed February 22, 2013, http://api-
ec.api.org/oil-and-natural-gas-overview/industry-economics/fuel-taxes.aspx.
Bajaj, Vikas. 2011. "India Measures itself Against a China that Doesn’t Notice." New York
Times, August 31.
Bullard, Robert D. 1999. "Dismantling Environmental Racism." Local Environment: The
International Journal of Justice and Sustainability 4 (1): 5.
Center for Disease Control. "Overweight and Obesity.", last modified April, accessed February
21, 2013, http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/facts.html.
Coates, Kevin C. 2009. "Finally, Maglev Leadership." ENR: Engineering News-Record 262 (7):
63.
Environmental Protection Agency. "Basic Information.", accessed Jan 26, 2013,
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/basicinfo.htm.
———. "Smart Growth.", accessed February 21, 2013,
http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/basic_info.htm.
Gottleib, Robert. 2007. Reinventing Los Angeles. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Hankey, Steve, Julian D. Marshall, and Michael Brauer. 2012. "Health Impacts of the Built
Environment: Within-Urban Variability in Physical Inactivity, Air Pollution, and Ischemic
Heart Disease Mortality." Environmental Health Perspectives 120 (2): 247-253.
Hanley, Lawrence J. 2012. "Public Transportation: A Missed Opportunity to Create Jobs."
Huffington Post, July 11.
Huffington Post. "U.S. Graduation Rate, Unemployment Compared to Other Nations in
Infographic.", accessed Jan 27, 2013,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/26/infographic-shows-how-us-_n_1628187.html.
Jacobs, Jane. 1992. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Vintage Books.
27

28. Jaffe, Eric. 2012. "5 Reasons Germans Ride 5 Times More Mass Transit than Americans." The
Atlantic Cities, October 5.
Jorgenson, Andrew K. and Brett Clark. 2012. "Are the Economy and the Environment
Decoupling? A Comparative International Study, 1960–2005." American Journal of
Sociology 118 (1): 1-44.
Krauss, Clifford. 2008. "Gas Prices Sends Surge of Riders to Mas Transit." New York Times,
May 10.
Kunzli, Nino et al. 2003. "Breathless in Los Angeles: The Exhausting Search for Clean Air."
American Journal of Public Health 93 (9): 1494.
Louis Berger Group. 2003. Baltimore-Washington D.C. Maglev Regional Economic Impact
Study. New York: Abell Foundation.
McIntyre, Douglas A. and Weigley, Samuel. "States that have Lost the most Jobs to China.",
accessed Jan 27, 2013, http://www.nbcnews.com/business/states-have-lost-most-jobs-china-
1B5929263.
McKenzie, Brian: Rapino, Melanie. 2011. Commuting in the United States 2009: The United
States Census Bureau.
Metropolitan Transit Authority. , accessed Feb 22, 2013, http://www.mta.info/?dest=1.
Powell, James and Gordon Danby. Summer 2003. "MAGLEV: The New Mode of Transport for
the 21st Century
." 21st Century Science & Technology Magazine.
Retzman, Martin. 1998. Major Railway Corridors, MagLev Projects The International MagLev
Board.
Sallis, James F. 2004. "Active Transportation and Physical Activity: Opportunities for
Collaboration on Transportation and Public Health Research." Transportation
Research.Part A, Policy and Practice 38 (4): 249.
Shanghai MagLev Transpiration Development Co Ltd. "Tickets and Fares.", accessed Feb 22,
2013, http://www.smtdc.com/en/jszl.asp.
Smart Growth America. "What is Smart Growth?" Smart Growth America: Making
Neighborhoods Great Together., http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/what-is-smart-growth.
28

29. Statistic Brain. 2012. Commute Statistics.
Swartz, Kimberly. 2013. Projected Costs of Chronic Diseases.
Systra Engineering. 2012. NYCT North Shore Alternatives Analysis.
The World Bank Group. "Data.", accessed 22 January, 2013, http://data.worldbank.org/.
Thompson, Lauren. 2011. "Intelligence Community Fears U.S. Manufacturing Decline." Forbes,
Feb 14.
United States Department of Labor. "Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population
Survey.", accessed Jan 27, 2013, http://www.bls.gov/cps/.
United States MagLev Coalition. , accessed Jan 22, 2013,
http://usmaglevcoalition.com/index.php.
29