Magnetic Levitation (Maglev) Trains: Technical Background, Cost Estimates, and Recent Developments
link to page 2 
May 18, 2021
Magnetic Levitation (Maglev) Trains: Technical Background,
Cost Estimates, and Recent Developments
Since the 1990s, the U.S. Department of Transportation has
Army Assistant Secretary for Civil Works, and authorized
provided funding to support development and construction
$500 million from the Highway Trust Fund for the
of a train system operated by magnetic levitation (maglev).
program. Much of this funding was never spent. The
Maglev trains use magnetic forces to create a cushion of
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century of 1998
space between a vehicle and its guideway, reducing friction
(TEA-21) then codified a maglev deployment program in
and permitting top speeds in excess of 300 miles per hour,
law (23 U.S.C. §322), under which seven projects were
which are not achievable by conventional wheel-on-rail
later identified for further study. TEA-21’s successor, the
trains.
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act of 2005 (SAFETEA) and its amendments,
The high speeds reached by maglev could theoretically
provided $90 million and authorized two demonstration
shorten some intercity trips to the length of a local transit
projects, one east and one west of the Mississippi River.
ride. Maglev trains can travel roughly 50% faster than the
fastest high-speed rail trains currently in use abroad and
The selected demonstration projects in Las Vegas, NV, and
nearly twice the top speed of Amtrak’s Acela, currently the
Pittsburgh, PA, never reached construction. SAFETEA
fastest passenger train in the United States. At full speed,
funding for the Las Vegas maglev was redirected to a
maglev trains could offer travel times competitive with
highway project; a Final Environmental Impact Statement
airline flights at distances of up to 750 miles. At that range,
was completed in 2010 before the Pennsylvania project was
maglev could serve city pairs too far apart to have merited
canceled as well. More recent appropriations for maglev
serious consideration for new high-speed rail lines, such as
research and development have not included the geographic
Chicago-Washington, DC (700 miles), or Atlanta-Miami
distribution requirements contained in SAFETEA. Congress
(660 miles).
has appropriated a total of $14 million for maglev research
and planning since FY2019.
Despite this advantage, maglev technology has seen limited
real-world use since its first demonstrations in the 1980s.
Competing Maglev Technologies
There is one high-speed maglev line in commercial service
Transrapid, the first maglev system to be demonstrated, was
today, an express airport shuttle in Shanghai, China. Very
developed in Germany, and uses what is known as
short lines using maglev technology but running at much
electromagnetic suspension (EMS). Transrapid vehicles
lower speeds are operating in Korea and Japan. A longer
resemble monorails, using vehicles with sides that extend
intercity line is in early construction stages in Japan, but is
below and beneath a single central structure. Despite having
not expected to open before the late 2020s, and another has
pioneered the technology, Germany has not deployed its
been proposed between Hong Kong and Guangzhou, China.
own maglev system for commercial use; a 25-mile line
from Munich to its airport was canceled in 2008, mainly
There are two main reasons, often interrelated, that few
due to cost concerns. The Shanghai maglev opened in 2002
maglev lines have been built: cost and lack of
uses a version of the Transrapid design, and reaches a top
interoperability. Maglev trains require very straight and
speed of 268 miles per hour on its 18-mile trip to Pudong
level tracks to maintain high speeds. This necessitates
International Airport. Plans to expand the route into a 105-
extensive viaducts and tunneling, making construction
mile intercity line were suspended after a high-speed rail
costly. Maglev vehicles are not compatible with
line, compatible with the rest of China’s high-speed rail
conventional rail infrastructure, making it difficult if not
network, opened in 2010. China’s proposed Hong Kong-
impossible for maglev trains to make use of existing
Guangzhou line would use a different technology.
terminals and rights-of-way in densely developed city
centers. This too could create the need for expensive
SCMaglev (short for superconducting maglev), developed
tunneling projects, or else lead developers to build
in Japan, uses a technology known as electrodynamic
terminals outside city centers, making it less convenient.
suspension (EDS). SCMaglev trains run on guideways that
more closely resemble trenches than monorails, and
Maglev Within U.S. Transportation Policy
vehicles ride on a thicker cushion of air than in an EMS
Federally funded research in maglev technology can be
system (Figure 1). There is no SCMaglev line in revenue
traced back to the 1970s. Since the 1990s, Congress has
service anywhere in the world. However, a test track is
authorized funding for maglev research and demonstration
operational in Yamanashi Prefecture, Japan, and is part of
projects in several surface transportation laws. The
the Chuo Shinkansen project that would link Tokyo (though
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
not its central rail station), Nagoya, and eventually Osaka
(ISTEA) created a maglev program office to be run jointly
on a new SCMaglev line built almost entirely in
by the U.S. Department of Transportation and the U.S.
underground tunnels. This would create a faster and more
https://crsreports.congress.gov
link to page 2
Magnetic Levitation (Maglev) Trains: Technical Background, Cost Estimates, and Recent Developments
direct alternative to a parallel high-speed rail line that is
million to $370 million per mile. At that cost, the project
unable to accommodate new or faster traffic.
would be much less expensive on a per-mile basis than
other U.S. rail tunnel projects currently under construction
Figure 1. SCMaglev and Transrapid Comparison
or applying for construction funds. Exact comparisons are
Showing gaps between vehicles and guideways, in millimeters
difficult since each project must contend with different
topography and settlement patterns, but a four-track, two-
mile rail tunnel also planned for Baltimore is expected to
cost $4.5 billion, or over $2.2 billion per mile, albeit for
twice as many tracks.
The DEIS cost estimates are in line with projected per-mile
costs of building the 178-mile Chuo Shinkansen project, but
there are few examples of U.S. public transportation
projects involving extensive tunneling with per-mile costs
similar to those in Japan; most are more expensive. The
Source: Yoshiuki Kasai, “JR Central’s Business Strategy,” 2012, at
costs of building the Chuo Shinkansen itself may escalate
http://icrier.org/pdf/yoshiyuki_Kasai.pdf.
as local opposition continues to delay the project.
Northeast Maglev Project Update
Cost-Benefit Considerations
The primary recipient of federal maglev funds since the end
Other plans, some requiring federal support, could achieve
of SAFETEA has been Northeast Maglev, a privately held
more modest mobility improvements by less capital-
company associated with the Central Japan Railway
intensive means. For example, a combination of faster-
Company, the firm building the Chuo Shinkansen project.
accelerating equipment, higher speed limits inside station
Northeast Maglev has proposed a line using SCMaglev
approaches, and signal upgrades to allow closer spacing
technology linking Washington, DC, with New York City.
between trains could result in improved trip times and
The first 36 miles of the project would be built mostly in
increased capacity on existing lines between Baltimore and
tunnels between Washington and Baltimore, MD, with a
Washington at a lower cost. While the time saved for riders
stop at BWI Thurgood Marshall International Airport in
from Baltimore to Washington would likely be much less
between (Figure 2). Northeast Maglev has advertised that
than the 30 to 45 minutes estimated by Northeast Maglev,
the travel time on this leg would be 15 minutes, roughly a
rail improvements would benefit travelers using
45-minute improvement over a commuter train making
intermediate stops, which a maglev line would not.
local stops, and a 30-minute improvement over an Amtrak
Passenger fares on Amtrak (currently $20 to $50) or
train making limited stops. Northeast Maglev has stated that
commuter rail ($8) would also be lower than tickets on
half the cost of its project will be financed by the Japanese
maglev, estimated to cost between $27 and $80 per trip.
government, and that “the remainder of funding will come
from U.S. government loan and grant programs, and the
Some observers have asserted that while the Baltimore-
private sector.”
Washington segment may not be well-suited for maglev, it
is a necessary step toward the establishment of New York-
Figure 2. Baltimore-Washington Maglev Route Map
Washington maglev service. There, too, it may be possible
to improve speed and capacity of existing infrastructure to a
point where investment in maglev may not be as attractive.
Northeast Maglev envisions a trip of one hour between
Washington and New York; the company has estimated that
the full build-out to New York may cost upwards of $100
billion, with the configuration of a New York terminal and
the need to tunnel beneath the Hudson River being major
factors. Amtrak’s plans envision a two-hour, 10-minute trip
by conventional trains between Washington and New York;
this would be over an hour longer than by maglev, but
achievable with far less tunneling and with ancillary
benefits to commuter and regional rail travel.
Nothing precludes federal support for conventional rail and
maglev simultaneously within the same corridor; one
justification for the Chuo Shinkansen project is that the
parallel high-speed rail line offers a variety of service
patterns and has little excess capacity. However, conditions
are not yet as congested on much of the Northeast Corridor,
Source: northeastmaglev.com.
including between Washington and Baltimore.
A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the
project was published in January 2021. Capital costs for the
Ben Goldman, Analyst in Transportation Policy
alternatives considered in the DEIS ranged between $10
IF11834
billion and $13 billion for the roughly 35-mile line, or $285
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Magnetic Levitation (Maglev) Trains: Technical Background, Cost Estimates, and Recent Developments
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF11834 · VERSION 1 · NEW
May 18, 2021
Magnetic Levitation (Maglev) Trains: Technical Background,
Cost Estimates, and Recent Developments
Since the 1990s, the U.S. Department of Transportation has
Army Assistant Secretary for Civil Works, and authorized
provided funding to support development and construction
$500 million from the Highway Trust Fund for the
of a train system operated by magnetic levitation (maglev).
program. Much of this funding was never spent. The
Maglev trains use magnetic forces to create a cushion of
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century of 1998
space between a vehicle and its guideway, reducing friction
(TEA-21) then codified a maglev deployment program in
and permitting top speeds in excess of 300 miles per hour,
law (23 U.S.C. §322), under which seven projects were
which are not achievable by conventional wheel-on-rail
later identified for further study. TEA-21’s successor, the
trains.
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act of 2005 (SAFETEA) and its amendments,
The high speeds reached by maglev could theoretically
provided $90 million and authorized two demonstration
shorten some intercity trips to the length of a local transit
projects, one east and one west of the Mississippi River.
ride. Maglev trains can travel roughly 50% faster than the
fastest high-speed rail trains currently in use abroad and
The selected demonstration projects in Las Vegas, NV, and
nearly twice the top speed of Amtrak’s Acela, currently the
Pittsburgh, PA, never reached construction. SAFETEA
fastest passenger train in the United States. At full speed,
funding for the Las Vegas maglev was redirected to a
maglev trains could offer travel times competitive with
highway project; a Final Environmental Impact Statement
airline flights at distances of up to 750 miles. At that range,
was completed in 2010 before the Pennsylvania project was
maglev could serve city pairs too far apart to have merited
canceled as well. More recent appropriations for maglev
serious consideration for new high-speed rail lines, such as
research and development have not included the geographic
Chicago-Washington, DC (700 miles), or Atlanta-Miami
distribution requirements contained in SAFETEA. Congress
(660 miles).
has appropriated a total of $14 million for maglev research
and planning since FY2019.
Despite this advantage, maglev technology has seen limited
real-world use since its first demonstrations in the 1980s.
Competing Maglev Technologies
There is one high-speed maglev line in commercial service
Transrapid, the first maglev system to be demonstrated, was
today, an express airport shuttle in Shanghai, China. Very
developed in Germany, and uses what is known as
short lines using maglev technology but running at much
electromagnetic suspension (EMS). Transrapid vehicles
lower speeds are operating in Korea and Japan. A longer
resemble monorails, using vehicles with sides that extend
intercity line is in early construction stages in Japan, but is
below and beneath a single central structure. Despite having
not expected to open before the late 2020s, and another has
pioneered the technology, Germany has not deployed its
been proposed between Hong Kong and Guangzhou, China.
own maglev system for commercial use; a 25-mile line
from Munich to its airport was canceled in 2008, mainly
There are two main reasons, often interrelated, that few
due to cost concerns. The Shanghai maglev opened in 2002
maglev lines have been built: cost and lack of
uses a version of the Transrapid design, and reaches a top
interoperability. Maglev trains require very straight and
speed of 268 miles per hour on its 18-mile trip to Pudong
level tracks to maintain high speeds. This necessitates
International Airport. Plans to expand the route into a 105-
extensive viaducts and tunneling, making construction
mile intercity line were suspended after a high-speed rail
costly. Maglev vehicles are not compatible with
line, compatible with the rest of China’s high-speed rail
conventional rail infrastructure, making it difficult if not
network, opened in 2010. China’s proposed Hong Kong-
impossible for maglev trains to make use of existing
Guangzhou line would use a different technology.
terminals and rights-of-way in densely developed city
centers. This too could create the need for expensive
SCMaglev (short for superconducting maglev), developed
tunneling projects, or else lead developers to build
in Japan, uses a technology known as electrodynamic
terminals outside city centers, making it less convenient.
suspension (EDS). SCMaglev trains run on guideways that
more closely resemble trenches than monorails, and
Maglev Within U.S. Transportation Policy
vehicles ride on a thicker cushion of air than in an EMS
Federally funded research in maglev technology can be
system (Figure 1). There is no SCMaglev line in revenue
traced back to the 1970s. Since the 1990s, Congress has
service anywhere in the world. However, a test track is
authorized funding for maglev research and demonstration
operational in Yamanashi Prefecture, Japan, and is part of
projects in several surface transportation laws. The
the Chuo Shinkansen project that would link Tokyo (though
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
not its central rail station), Nagoya, and eventually Osaka
(ISTEA) created a maglev program office to be run jointly
on a new SCMaglev line built almost entirely in
by the U.S. Department of Transportation and the U.S.
underground tunnels. This would create a faster and more
https://crsreports.congress.gov
link to page 2
Magnetic Levitation (Maglev) Trains: Technical Background, Cost Estimates, and Recent Developments
direct alternative to a parallel high-speed rail line that is
million to $370 million per mile. At that cost, the project
unable to accommodate new or faster traffic.
would be much less expensive on a per-mile basis than
other U.S. rail tunnel projects currently under construction
Figure 1. SCMaglev and Transrapid Comparison
or applying for construction funds. Exact comparisons are
Showing gaps between vehicles and guideways, in millimeters
difficult since each project must contend with different
topography and settlement patterns, but a four-track, two-
mile rail tunnel also planned for Baltimore is expected to
cost $4.5 billion, or over $2.2 billion per mile, albeit for
twice as many tracks.
The DEIS cost estimates are in line with projected per-mile
costs of building the 178-mile Chuo Shinkansen project, but
there are few examples of U.S. public transportation
projects involving extensive tunneling with per-mile costs
similar to those in Japan; most are more expensive. The
Source: Yoshiuki Kasai, “JR Central’s Business Strategy,” 2012, at
costs of building the Chuo Shinkansen itself may escalate
http://icrier.org/pdf/yoshiyuki_Kasai.pdf.
as local opposition continues to delay the project.
Northeast Maglev Project Update
Cost-Benefit Considerations
The primary recipient of federal maglev funds since the end
Other plans, some requiring federal support, could achieve
of SAFETEA has been Northeast Maglev, a privately held
more modest mobility improvements by less capital-
company associated with the Central Japan Railway
intensive means. For example, a combination of faster-
Company, the firm building the Chuo Shinkansen project.
accelerating equipment, higher speed limits inside station
Northeast Maglev has proposed a line using SCMaglev
approaches, and signal upgrades to allow closer spacing
technology linking Washington, DC, with New York City.
between trains could result in improved trip times and
The first 36 miles of the project would be built mostly in
increased capacity on existing lines between Baltimore and
tunnels between Washington and Baltimore, MD, with a
Washington at a lower cost. While the time saved for riders
stop at BWI Thurgood Marshall International Airport in
from Baltimore to Washington would likely be much less
between (Figure 2). Northeast Maglev has advertised that
than the 30 to 45 minutes estimated by Northeast Maglev,
the travel time on this leg would be 15 minutes, roughly a
rail improvements would benefit travelers using
45-minute improvement over a commuter train making
intermediate stops, which a maglev line would not.
local stops, and a 30-minute improvement over an Amtrak
Passenger fares on Amtrak (currently $20 to $50) or
train making limited stops. Northeast Maglev has stated that
commuter rail ($8) would also be lower than tickets on
half the cost of its project will be financed by the Japanese
maglev, estimated to cost between $27 and $80 per trip.
government, and that “the remainder of funding will come
from U.S. government loan and grant programs, and the
Some observers have asserted that while the Baltimore-
private sector.”
Washington segment may not be well-suited for maglev, it
is a necessary step toward the establishment of New York-
Figure 2. Baltimore-Washington Maglev Route Map
Washington maglev service. There, too, it may be possible
to improve speed and capacity of existing infrastructure to a
point where investment in maglev may not be as attractive.
Northeast Maglev envisions a trip of one hour between
Washington and New York; the company has estimated that
the full build-out to New York may cost upwards of $100
billion, with the configuration of a New York terminal and
the need to tunnel beneath the Hudson River being major
factors. Amtrak’s plans envision a two-hour, 10-minute trip
by conventional trains between Washington and New York;
this would be over an hour longer than by maglev, but
achievable with far less tunneling and with ancillary
benefits to commuter and regional rail travel.
Nothing precludes federal support for conventional rail and
maglev simultaneously within the same corridor; one
justification for the Chuo Shinkansen project is that the
parallel high-speed rail line offers a variety of service
patterns and has little excess capacity. However, conditions
are not yet as congested on much of the Northeast Corridor,
Source: northeastmaglev.com.
including between Washington and Baltimore.
A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the
project was published in January 2021. Capital costs for the
Ben Goldman, Analyst in Transportation Policy
alternatives considered in the DEIS ranged between $10
IF11834
billion and $13 billion for the roughly 35-mile line, or $285
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Magnetic Levitation (Maglev) Trains: Technical Background, Cost Estimates, and Recent Developments
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF11834 · VERSION 1 · NEW