Baltimore-Washington Superconducting Maglev:
Is it sustainable? Is it fair?
By Janet Gingold
February 2019
Facing the clear and present danger of climate change, with the transportation sector producing over 28% of US greenhouse gas emissions, we see an urgent need for transition to cleaner, greener transportation options. The aging transportation infrastructure along the Northeast Corridor is not keeping up with demands related to increasing population and economic growth. The necessary major systemic changes require regional planning and implementation with greenhouse gas reduction as a primary goal. Costs and benefits of each proposed infrastructure improvement need to be compared with other options not only in terms of dollars spent and transit times but also in terms of carbon pollution and environmental justice. How much greenhouse gas is emitted per passenger-mile travelled? Who benefits? Who pays the price? Is it sustainable? Is it fair?
Efficient, reliable rail travel using electricity from renewable energy sources will be an important part of a regional transportation plan to decrease greenhouse gas emissions. High- speed rail projects like the Baltimore-Washington Superconducting Maglev (SCMAGLEV) might replace passenger trips using cars, planes, buses and other trains. Therefore, it is important to consider carefully how this new technology compares with other options in predicted effects not only on the land, water, forests, and wildlife, but also on the air, with special attention to greenhouse gases and the people, with special attention to fairness. This requires detailed estimates of greenhouse gas production per passenger-mile travelled as well as predicted changes in consumer behavior if this option becomes available.
The SCMAGLEV Final Alternatives Report from the Federal Railroad Administration and the Maryland Department of Transportation details how multiple proposed alternative routes have now been winnowed down to two routes, both along the Baltimore-Washington Parkway, with most of it deep underground. While the remaining options avoid or mitigate many of the surface disruptions of the eliminated alternatives (especially impacts on private property and operations at the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, NASA and NSA), both remaining routes would have significant environmental impacts. Many acres of government lands, especially the Baltimore-Washington Parkway and Patuxent Wildlife Refuge, would be affected by access roads, emergency exits, ventilation facilities, power substations, and the rolling stock depot. Huge quantities of excavated muck would need to be transported by truck to unspecified destinations.
The environmental impact of SCMAGLEV also includes the environmental impact of providing power to run it. The powerful electromagnetic forces that levitate and move the train require large quantities of electrical energy and this energy would come from Maryland’s power grid, which is currently supplied mostly by burning fossil fuels. Cruising at top speed, a 16-car maglev train uses 35 MW of power. Any claim that this project will decrease greenhouse gas emissions depends on its electricity coming from renewable resources. How many acres of solar panels or wind turbines would be required to power this project? Where would they be built?
Numerous federal, state and local government agencies with jurisdiction over potentially affected areas have provided thorough and thoughtful comments and questions about the effects of the project on their areas (see Appendix F). They include statements about important impacts, including land use that is not consistent with existing conservation easements and legislated uses, as well as effects on storm water management, sensitive wetlands, forests, native flora and fauna, existing utilities, historic landmarks, noise and light pollution, national security issues and other concerns.
As might be expected with a project of this complexity, opinions vary and change as new information emerges. When the alternatives report was released, members of Maryland’s Legislative Black Caucus joined others in questioning the fundamental fairness of the project. People who will bear the greatest adverse effects of the environmental disruption caused by the project will likely experience very little benefit from it. This project might benefit people who wish to travel between downtown DC and downtown Baltimore or between BWI airport and either downtown, but only if they can afford the ticket price. There also may be benefits to businesses near the terminals. However, for people along the route where most environmental impact would occur, traveling through urban congestion to reach to either terminal would negate any benefit of this high-speed trip, even if they could afford the ticket price. To date, no data has been provided to support the contention that highway users would benefit from decreased traffic congestion.
We cannot determine whether any potential benefit to society outweighs the potential costs without more information about who is likely to ride the train and how many vehicles might be taken off the road. We have yet to see any projections about ridership. How many people currently travel between the Baltimore or BWI airport and Washington, DC? How many use existing rail (MARC and Amtrak), bus, cabs, shuttles, or cars? Of those, how many might use SCMAGLEV instead? How would the cost per trip, the frequency of trains and connectivity with other modes of travel at each terminus affect ridership? How would greenhouse gas emissions per passenger-trip change if people opted for travel by SCMAGLEV instead of other existing options? How might these numbers change as regional population ages and other new technologies evolve?
Before deciding whether SCMAGLEV can help make our regional transportation system more sustainable and more just, policy makers need a different kind of analysis that enables comparisons of greenhouse gas emissions by the transportation sector with various configurations of infrastructure, with transparency about the assumptions made in predictions. Independent experts should use the best available data and appropriate mathematical modelling to compare likely changes in greenhouse gas emissions not only for SCMAGLEV and a no-build option, but also for other options such as improvements in MARC and AMTRAK trains, highway expansion, and dedicated bus lanes. These models should enable comparisons for different scenarios, including changes over time as more gasoline and diesel powered vehicles are replaced by electric vehicles and more electricity is generated from clean, renewable energy.
As Sierra Club Executive Director, Michael Brune has said, “We can’t protect our climate simply by saying ‘no’ to bad ideas. We must also shout ‘yes!’ to better ideas.” However, the information available in the Baltimore-Washington Superconductive Maglev Project Final Alternatives Report of November 2018 does not provide the necessary information to determine whether or not SCMAGLEV is a “bad idea” or a “better idea.” We count on our policy makers to insist on a thorough NEPA process with no shortcuts in preparing the forthcoming Draft Environmental Impact Statement as well as transparent, independent analysis that sheds better light on the effects of the Baltimore-Washington Superconducting Maglev and other proposed transportation infrastructure projects on greenhouse gas production. We need to keep asking: Is it sustainable? Is it fair?