You are talking about a magnetic bearing. It wouldn’t be as effective because
-you still have to turn the mass of the mass of all the wheels
-a magnetic axel cant lift as much train as magnets running the entire length of the train
The cost of land acquisition is always a large factor in any public works project. While the government has eminent domain, that does not mean they will go ahead and tear up an entire city to lay an experimental train system.
Simple answer - room. There is just not enough room for all those cars on the road or at their destination. A single auto occupies as much space as a dozen rail commuters.
The problem is “scale”. Compare a suburban sprawl area with a dense urban downtown area. The dense downtown area is scaled for pedestrians. Everything is in walking distance. In a suburban area, everything is so far apart because of the parking lots you have to get into your car just to got to the next stripmall over. Pedestrians don’t like to walk long distances and cars get crowded when the streets get to narrow.
What you need to do is figure out how to get people from a dispersed residental areas into centralized commercial areas. If you have to drive to the train station, most people mind as well drive to work unless traffic or parking is an issue.
Riverside, CA, to San Francisco, CA in thirteen hours by Amtrak? This is not sufficient, folks! When I started recognizing towns in the Bay Area, I wanted them to just let me off so I could walk from San Jose.
>Isn’t most of the noise that emanates from, say, a freeway caused by the combined sounds of the internal-combustion engines (eliminated in a mag-pull system) plus the “whoosh” of a vehicle cleaving the air (present equally in either system)?
>My “car-ferry” idea (I concur that turning all cars into maglevs isn’t practical) is aimed at addressing the pollution and commute-time for those who must make 50ish-mile round trips every weekday, spending most of that time in jam-creep (freeway jelly?). And it doesn’t have to remove every single car from the freeway, just make enough of a dent that the remaining cars (who don’t care to pay the substantial fare) can flow along at near the max speed.
The point, Scott, is to make the system lightweight and fast. And you can’t do that and carry cars at the same time, and the space and weight load occupied by the car equals ten passengers, as has already been said. Plus, what are you going to do with the cars when they get there? As I’ve pointed out, the purpose of the Philadelphia project is to get people from remote areas to downtown destinations where they can easily transfer to a bus, local train or cab to get to their final destination. Or jump on a plane. The entire concept is based on getting the cars off the road by making it practical not to need one near your office.
OK, man. But I’m not really focusing on the Philly idea per se; I wish it well.
I’m asserting a thesis, namely:
People who presently own cars and use them habitually (as in urban California) will be VERY resistant to leaving them home–deed, sir, I think sorely vexed–because they just plain DON’T WANNA wait at stops and make transfers and in general deal with the problems of public transportation; they would just as soon sit in traffic jams, because AT LEAST THEY HAVE THEIR DAMN CAR WHEN THEY GET THERE. So even if car-ferries leave the problem of car use in the destination areas relatively untouched, it might STILL reduce overall pollution and trip-time and bad tempers, etc.
As for “lightweight and fast”–seems to me finding the proper mix is an engineering detail. (And I did suggest wheeled mag-pull as something to consider.)
And what good is worrying about possible passenger-density if not enough passengers will take it anyway because they want their forkin’ cars?