Japanese Maglev Train Goes Record 374 MPH

A Japanese maglev train set a world speed record last week, reaching a top speed of 374 MPH. The experimental magnetic levitation train set a world record when it reached a top speed of 361 miles per hour back in 2003, and it broke that record at 366 mph two weeks ago.

But then last week, it broke the record again, travelling at an astonishing 374 mph. At that rate, it could make the trip from Tokyo to Nagoya, which normally takes 5 hours by car, in a mere 40 minutes. But don’t buy your tickets yet. The first maglev trains are not expected to enter regular service until 2027.

A maglev train rides along a specially constructed rail line. An electric field allows it to ride about 4 inches off the ground. Since there are no wheels touching the tracks, friction is greatly reduced, which allows the maglev train to go faster than any conventional train. While it might seem that most of the power the train uses would be needed to keep it hovering just off the ground, in fact the majority of power is used to overcome aerodynamic drag.

That drag could be substantially reduced it the maglev train ran inside a vacuum tube, which is precisely the idea behind Elon Musk’s visionary Hyperloop concept. While that system would not operate in a complete vacuum, it would still remove most of the air from inside the tube, allowing maglev trains inside to hit speeds of 800 mph or more. That’s fast enough to make the trip from New York to Los Angeles in just over 4 hours. It would also put some airlines out of business. A Chinese company thinks it can make a train that can travel 1800 mph using vacuum tube technology, but don’t hold your breath for that one.

The fastest maglev train currently in commercial service connects Shanghai to the local airport. It makes the 18 mile trip in 8 minutes at speeds up to 250 mph. Other low speed maglev trains are in use or proposed in many parts of Asia, where moving large numbers of people quickly is a priority. One such train built in Japan for the 2005 World Expo carried over 10,000,000 passengers in just 3 months time.

In America, the Amtrak Acela is capable of traveling 150 mph but the poorly maintained tracks in the Northeast Corridor limit it to as little as 50 mph along some sections. Texas is interested in constructing a new rail line for a high speed “Bullet Train” to connect Houston and Dallas.

High speed trains are an appealing alternative to air travel. China is thinking about building a rail link from Beijing to San Francisco that would transport passengers in comfort from one city to the other in 2 days time. And they probably won’t charge extra for your luggage, either!

One consideration, of course, is how much energy will these trains of the future consume and where will it come from? If the electricity is supplied by dirty, coal fired facilities, the advantage of speed may be offset by negative environmental considerations. But what if the got their electricity from solar power? Another key question is, how much will they cost to build? And can fares be kept low enough to attract people who normally fly to consider going by train instead? These are questions that have no answers at present.

Studies Conclude Car Ownership Is On The Decline

Reports from two different, respected institutions have been making waves in the automotive world for coming to the same conclusion; America, and the world, are past the point of automotive saturation, and rather than seeing sales expand, in a few short decades the auto industry could experience a massive contraction to the tune of tens of millions of units.

The University of Michigan’s Transportation Institute released a study on the car driving and buying habits of Americans, and it isn’t a very rosy picture. Since 2007, the number of households without a car at all has increased from 8.7% to 9.2%. In major metro areas, where many young people are flocking to, the number of people who don’t own a car is even higher.

In New York City, 56% of people don’t own a car, meaning car owners are actually a minority. 38% of Washington D.C. go without their own car, as do 37% of Boston residents. Surprisingly, Philadelphia (33%) is less into the whole car ownership thing than San Francisco (31%), though a shockingly high number of Motor City residents (26%) don’t partake in their city’s primary industry.

IHS Automotive, meanwhile, put out another story that looks at the auto industry as a whole and the prospective markets going forward. While many auto companies are touting growth in developing nations, sales in countries like China, Brazil, India, and Russia are hitting a wall. While the Chinese auto market is now the biggest in the world, the government is currently working to seriously curtail car ownership as incredible levels of pollution choke cities like Beijing.

The IHS report says that by 2035, the auto industry could see sales fall by some 30 million units annually, and worldwide car usage could drop to just 250 million vehicles. It is currently estimated that there are as many as a billion cars on the road, somewhere, these days, which would mean auto ownership would have to pretty much take a nosedive. That seems either crazy optimistic or apocalyptically devastating, depending on whom you ask. Then again, the first signs of rebellion against car ownership are already cropping up.

Some cities are going even further though, laying down plans to outright ban cars from the inner metro. Hamburg, Germany is working out the details of a centralized “Green Network” plan that by 2034 would ban cars from 40% of the city proper. Could an American metro like New York deliver on a similar plan? It wasn’t all that long ago that cars didn’t even exist, but cities like New York and Hamburg have been around for centuries.

I love cars and all, but as many millennials already know, it’s both difficult and expensive to keep a car in a crowded urban area. So many of us are learning to just live without a car, or at best splitting a car with our spouse. Then again, there’s good reason to believe that we haven’t hit “peak car” quite yet. Maybe it’s time we seriously start considering if some places wouldn’t be better off without the congestion or convenience offered by cars.

One thing we’ll have to figure out…what to do with all of those empty parking lots?

Image: Flickr

Central Ohio Transit Authority (COTA) switching to buses that run on natural gas

Enlarge Image

Dispatch File Photo

COTA began using hybrid buses that run on electricity and diesel fuel last year, but but officials say the compressed-natural-gas alternative looks more promising.

Central Ohio Transit Authority officials say they see little downside in a planned switch to buses that run cheaper, quieter and cleaner on compressed natural gas.

They plan to buy natural gas-burning buses as early as 2013 — new pumps must be installed first — and they think federal grants will be available to cover much of the cost. The new buses cost more to buy but less to fuel and repair.

“We’ve tested a good number of alternative fuels,” said Pat Stephens, COTA’s vice president for operations. “We believe it offers us the best opportunity to be responsible in reducing our fuel costs and to be responsible environmentally.”

Most buses now run on ultra-low-sulfur diesel, which has cost COTA an average of $3.10 per gallon this year. An equivalent amount of compressed natural gas costs $1.13.

COTA President and CEO Bill Lhota said the transit authority will continue to test hybrid buses that run on electricity and diesel fuel, but the compressed-natural-gas alternative looks more promising.

“It has a lot of things going for it,” he said. “I could see a mix.”

COTA has tested fuel alternatives in recent years in an effort to save money and reduce emissions. In 2007, the agency completed a federally mandated switch to the ultra-low-sulfur diesel but stopped buying a biodiesel blend when the cost got too high.

Six hybrids that hit the road in 2010 saved $3,600 a month on fuel, but they cost an extra $230,000 each.

Buses that burn compressed natural gas cost $40,000 more each but also require new fuel pumps and changes to maintenance facilities that would total $12.4 million. COTA officials said federal grants designed to steer agencies toward more-environmentally friendly fuels should pay most of that expense, as well.

Buses last about 12 years, so COTA will start buying natural-gas-burning buses as replacements. Stephens said the agency won’t retrofit any of its nearly 300 diesel buses.

Sam Spofforth, executive director of Clean Fuels Ohio, a group that promotes alternative fuels, said vehicles that run on compressed natural gas have come down in price in recent years.

Natural gas is neither toxic nor carcinogenic, and it doesn’t harm soil, surface water or groundwater. Clean Fuels Ohio encourages its use and is overseeing an $11 million federal grant to help convert fleets and install natural-gas fuel pumps.

Diesel has become cleaner, too, though, Spofforth said.

“Compressed natural gas used to be considerably better environmentally but not a good economic choice,” he said. “Today, compressed natural gas is significantly better economically and marginally better environmentally.”

The American Public Transportation Association estimates that 18.6 percent of the nation’s buses are powered by compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas or blends. More than 65 percent still run on diesel fuel.

The Metro Regional Transit Authority in Akron stopped buying buses using compressed natural gas in 2008 after pipelines and processing plants in the Gulf of Mexico were knocked out by Hurricanes Gustav and Ike.

Prices fell in 2009, though, and the agency resumed plans to convert its fleet. About half its buses run on compressed natural gas.

The extra costs are recouped after about four years of fuel savings, said Dean Harris, the Akron authority’s director of finance.

Stephens said COTA’s research found natural-gas prices to be less volatile than those of diesel fuel. Also, the U.S. produces lots of natural gas, including in Ohio.

Source: Columbus Dispatch