[Devil]

http://www.swissmetro.com/en/00_Home/index_E.htm

This is not science fiction or a pie in the sky idea, but something concrete that has been developed over the last 30 years. Basically it is a low-energy, high speed mass transport system, consisting of a maglev train running in a partial vacuum. It can transport 400 persons at 500 to 600 km/h. Because there is no physical contact between the train and anything else, there is no rolling friction. Because it runs in a partial vacuum, air friction is very much reduced. Once the initial inertia is overcome to get it up to speed, very little energy is required to keep it there. The energy of deceleration, as it approaches a station, is recovered. The total energy requirements per passenger are about half that of conventional rail and 1/8th that of a car.

Far-fetched? No, it has been thoroughly engineered by the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Lausanne, since Nieth's original conception in 1974 and small scale model trials have been conclusive.
http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/Swissinfo. ... id=3987243
The first full scale pilot study, as part of a project to link Lausanne and Geneva (~60 km) is ready and a concession has been applied for. The second phase will be to add to this "line" to take it to Berne and then Zurich, making a total of about 280 km with just four stations. Transit time from Geneva Cointrin airport to Zurich Kloten airport will ~40 minutes, faster than by plane, if you take loading/unloading and taxiing times into account, at a fraction of the cost.

Imagine NYC to Washington in half an hour at a fraction of the energy costs.

[khebab]

This is very interesting but the cost is staggering ( €40 billion!) for a connection between Lyon and Munich (500km). I guess this is due to all the magnets (is it supraconductors?) you have to installed all the way. Constructing a 500km tunnel is also quite a challenge (see the 50km eurotunnel).

[frankthetank]

I'm talking a little out of my ass here, but if i remember correctly, there was an idea in Popular Science (i believe) that had a little article about using this type of technology. It would link the US and Europe (underwater?) and be very fast. The cost was tremendous (not likely to happen)...

Maybe in 500 years, but this stuff isn't that productive to solving the upcoming problems this world faces.

[Devil]

Yes, the capital cost is ginormous, but the running costs will be so much lower (minimal energy, no wear on moving parts) that they reckon this will more than compensate over a 20 year amortisation period.

Don't underestimate the Swiss for the tunnel technology, either. Most of the line will be dug out from the surface, like they did with the 27 km toroidal LEP accelerator at the CERN and are doing with the new Lausanne Métro from Flon to Epalinges, due for completion in three years. The same technique was also used the for the LEB line extension from Chauderon to Flon, a few years ago. Where true tunneling is necessary, they have more experience than anyone. The Alps are already like Emmental cheese (much of it secret military installations and networks).

[MarkR]

An interesting technology. Such high speeds without the pollution and energy demands of air travel are very exciting. One can also imagine a number of exciting spin-off technologies - e.g. superconducting power distribution and improved underground tunneling.

Air travel, apart from its high consumption of oil, produces enormous quantities of carcinogenic and smog forming pollutants - e.g. NOx. A London map of NOx levels shows an intense bright spot over heathrow, extending for miles in each direction.

Indeed, high speed rail in Europe is already starting to displace air travel. The Eurostar trains from London to Paris or Brussels, can already outpace planes (when check-in time, etc is included), yet fares are less. The new high-speed UK channel tunnel rail link is set to improve things even more.

Actually, the cost is not that incredible - Indeed I can hardly believe it, because it is considerably less expensive than two rail projects recently undertaken in the UK. E40 billion for a 1000 km underground line seems very reasonable, when the Brits could only manage E8 billion (equivalent) for a 100 km overground line (CTRL) or E5 billion for a 20 km low-speed underground line (London underground Jubilee line extention).

[Denny]

I recently was in Europe and it did amaze me seeing so many high capital cost projects flourishing. Brat Briain has a 20 billoin pound wind energy program, for instance. I guess it always thus, like if you turn the clock back 500 years and saw St. Peter's under construction or, 200 years ago with the rise of the canals and then railways in England.

$40 Billion for a 500 km stretch does seem high, but let's compare the total cost involved with a stretch of say I-75 from Detroit to Cincinnati over twenty years. Think of the number of cars, the number of vehicle wrecks, the ongoing repair and reconstructions, etc. etc. Then the tons and tons of pollution gases and the millions of tons of fuel consumed by those vehicle miles. Somehow, ihn North America, we don't havde a good model to go by for the trade-off between social value and individual value.

I can't say for sure if $40B is economic, but you do have give credit to the Europeans for taking some gambles.

[The_Virginian]

40 Billion Euro keep s alot of people employed and paying taxes, so some is recouped there.

Fares wil pay for only a fraction of tha, and would likely just go for upkeep.

The real benefit is a government who has the capital, can keep traffic of humans moving with minimal energy, just lots of paper.

[Kingcoal]

As Western Europe spends it's money wisely on building futuristic infrastructure, the USA wastes it's money on foolhardy imperialistic campaigns and exports it's job opportunities overseas to the lowest bidders.

Makes me wonder if the 21st century will be the "Euro Century."