New Ways: Tiltrotor Aircraft and

Magnetically Levitated Vehicles

September 1991

OTA-SET-507

NTIS order #N92-14933
Recommended Citation:

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, New Ways: Tiltrotor Aircrafl &

Magnetically Levitated Vehicles, OTA-SET-507 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office, October 1991).

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office

Superintendent of Documents, Mail Stop: SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-9328

ISBN O-16 -035630-X
Foreword

Flying on a commercial jet is now the fastest way for the public to travel between most cities in

the United States. But travelers spend much of their trip time getting to or from the airport, at the

terminal, or in the airplane while it sits on the ground. Magnetically levitated (maglev) vehicles and

tiltrotor aircraft are among the new and distinctly different technologies that have been proposed to

help travelers go from origin to destination quicker than conventional airlines or Amtrak, on trips

up to about 500 miles.

In recent years, Congress has supported both military tiltrotor development and research into

maglev technologies, although budget constraints have threatened this funding each year. At the

request of the House Committee on Appropriations, OTA assessed what is currently known about

tiltrotor and maglev, and what roles these and other advanced technologies could play in improving

intercity transportation. The late Senator John Heinz had also asked OTA to study the construction

costs of various high-speed rail and maglev systems.

Common issues for these systems include their possible contributions to improving mobility in

congested corridors, U.S. technology leadership, the Federal role in transportation research and

development, and institutional and community barriers to major, new infrastructure programs.

Moreover, some Federal financing is likely to be required if commercial maglev or tiltrotor technologies are to be developed by U.S. industry over the next decade.

Congress will need to clarify its objectives for supporting or encouraging these technologies

before it can make wise decisions on when or whether to undertake substantial, long-term Federal

programs in support of either or both of them. This report identifies several funding and management

options for consideration if such goals are established.

OTA thanks the many government, industry, and citizen participants who contributed generously to this study through workshop panels, interviews, reviews, and other means of sharing their

knowledge and experience with us. Their participation does not necessarily represent endorsement

of the contents of the report, for which OTA bears sole responsibility.

,

/J’f 67’LA# ‘ ~ 2

JOHN H. GIBBONS

Director

. . .

Ill
Maglev and Tiltrotor Technologies: Research, Development, and Testing Needs

and the Federal Role Workshop, February 6, 199 I

Peter Benjamin, Workshop Chair

Director of Planning, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

Evan Fradenburgh

Director of Research and Advanced Design

Sikorsky Aircraft Division

Richard Gran

Director, Advanced Concepts

Grumman Corp.

John Harding

Special Assistant/Maglev Technology Development

Office of Research and Development

Federal Railroad Administration

Richard John

Director

Volpe National Transportation Systems Center

John Kapala

Executive Vice President

Maglev, Inc.

J. David Kocurek

President

Ishida Aerospace Research

Henry Kolm

President

Magneplane International

Gary McAllister

Manager

Applied Physics and Civil

Engineering Programs for R&D

Bechtel Group, Inc.

James 1. McDaniel

Director

Vertical Flight Program Office

Federal Aviation Administration

Philip C. Norwine

Vice President

Commercial Market Development

Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc.

David Phraner

Supervisor Transportation Planning

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

John W. Piasecki

Assistant to the President

Piasecki Aircraft Corp.

Donald Rote

Physicist

Energy Systems Division

Argonne National Laboratory

Joseph H. Smith

President

Rail Transportation Systems Inc.

Robert Whitehead

Assistant Director for Aeronautics (Rotorcraft)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NOTE: OTA appreciates and is grateful for the valuable assistance and thoughtful critiques provided by the participants in the workshop.

The workshop participants do not, however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this report. OTA assumes full responsibility

for the report and the accuracy of its contents.

iv
Maglev and Tiltrotor Transportation: System Concepts, Economics, and Regulatory

Issues Workshop, April 18, 1991

Jenifer Wishart, Workshop Chair

Vice President, James F. Hickling Management Consultants Limited

Don Baker

Director, Policy and Program Bureau

Commercial Transport Division

New York Department of Transportation

Al Bertini

Staff Member

National Maglev Initiative

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Christopher J. Boon

Manager, Transportation Systems Research

Canadian Institute of Guided Ground Transport

Queen’s University

Mark Brackett

Senior Planner of Equipment and Service

National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Al Brown

Member of the Board

Citizens for the Abatement of Airport Noise

Robert Cox

Attorney

Messer, Vickers, et al.

Raymond H. Ellis

Principal

KPMG Peat MarWick

Frank S. Koppelman

Professor

Transportation Center

Northwestern University

Dick Linn

Senior Coordinator for Environmental Planning

American Airlines

Cindy McKim

Division Chief

Division of Rail

California Department of Transportation

Phil Olekszyk

Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety

Federal Railroad Administration

Evan Stoddard

Director

Economic Development Department

Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh

D. Spyder Thomas

National Resource Specialist for System Capacity

Federal Aviation Administration

P.R. Thompson

Market Research Manager, Advanced Projects

Boeing Commercial Airplane Group

NOTE: OTA appreciates and is grateful for the valuable assistance and thoughtful critiques provided by the participants in the workshop.

The workshop participants do not, however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this report. OTA assumes full responsibility

for the report and the accuracy of its contents.

v
Other Reviewers and Contributor

Arne Bang

Federal Railroad Administration

Laurence E. Blow

Argonne National Laboratory

Aviva Brecher

Volpe National Transportation

Systems Center

Thomas F. Comparato

Volpe National Transportation

Systems Center

Gordon Danby

Brookhaven National

Laboratory

William W. Dickhart, III

Transrapid International

Walter Diewald

Transportation Research Board

Denis A. Doute

Rail Transportation Systems, Inc.

John Fischer

Congressional Research Service

Roger Fleming

Air Transport Association

of America

Michel Guyard

Embassy of France

Joel Hicks

National Air Traffic

Controllers Association

John Hopkins

Volpe National Transportation

Systems Center

Peter V. Hwoschinsky

Federal Aviation Administration

Larry Jenney

Transportation Research Board

Peter Johnson

Office of Technology Assessment

Robert Krick

Federal Railroad Administration

Stephen B. Kuznetsov

PSM Maglev Industries

Theodore Lane

Thomas/Lane & Associates

James T. McQueen

Federal Railroad Administration

Arrigo Mongini

Federal Railroad Administration

Robert L. Neir

Boeing Commercial Airplane

Group

John O’Donnell

Volpe National Transportation

Systems Center

Robert Parsons

Parsons Transportation Associates

Frank N. Piasecki

Piasecki Aircraft Corp.

Peter Plumeau

U.S. General Accounting Office

Ron Ricks

Southwest Airlines Co.

W.A. Samouce

Bell Helicopter Textron

Oliver Steinmeier

University of Karlsruhe, Germany

Richard A. Uher

Carnegie-Mellon University

George Unger

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Joseph Vranich

High Speed Rail Association

John F. Ward

Ward Associates

Edward Weiner

U.S. Department of

Transportation

John West

California Department of

Transportation

Steven Zimrick

California Department of

Transportation

John Zugschwert

American Helicopter Society

John Zuk

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Michael Zywokarte

NYNA, Inc.

vi
OTA Project Staff—New Ways: Tiltrotor Aircraft and Magnetically Levitated

Vehicles

John Andelin, Assfitant Director, OTA

Science, Information, and Natural Resources Division

Nancy Carson, Program Manager

Science, Education, and Transportation

Kevin Dopart, Project Director

Edith Page, Senior Associate

Jonathan Atkin, AnaZyst

Daniel Broun, Research Assistant

Kathryn Van Wyk, Editorl

Joseph Babiec, Intern

Marsha Fenn, Of)ice Administrator

Gay Jackson, PC Specialist

Tamara Cymanski, Admini.strative Secretary

vii
CONTENTS

Chapter 1.

Chapter 2.

Chapter 3.

Chapter 4.

Chapter 5.

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..3

Introduction and Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ......15

Tiltrotor System Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . .......29

Magnetic Levitation and Related Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Federal Policy Issues for Maglev and Tiltrotor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......89

Appendix A. The Effects of Electromagnetic Fields . . . . . . . . . . . ........................103

Appendix B. Federal Transportation Conclusions and Policy Options . ..................106

. . . vi/l
CHAPTER I

Summary
CONTENTS

The Decisionmaking Framework . . . . . .

Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Maglev and High-Speed Rail Systems

Tiltrotor Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Findings and Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Technical Feasibility, . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Federal Financing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Technology Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . .

Improved Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Federal Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....*., . . 5

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .......11

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Table

l-1. Steps

Table

Page

Needed for Operational Maglev or Tiltrotor System .. .. . . . . . . . . . . ... .....10
CHAPTER I

Summary

On almost any journey between major cities in the

United States, travelers encounter traffic jams on busy

roads and at airports. Magnetically levitated (maglev)

vehicles and tiltrotor aircraft are among the technologies that could improve passenger mobility at large

terminals and in the most crowded intercity corridors

in the United States in the long term. However, like all

new transportation systems, both tiltrotor and maglev

will be expensive to develop and establish, and some

form of Federal support will be necessary if either one

is to have a substantial role in intercity passenger

service. Furthermore, complementary Federal policies, programs, and standards must be developed and

implemented, if these technologies are to help resolve

any of the congestion problems besetting transportation. Budget constraints and the uncertainties inherent

in deciding how much and what type of additional

Federal investment to make in these two technologies

confront Congress with difficult decisions. At the request of the House Committee on Appropriations,

OTA has assessed what is currently known about tiltrotor and maglev and laid out findings and options for

Congress to consider.

The Decisionmaking Framework

Maglev vehicles, which resemble either monorail

cars or sleek trains, are lifted and propelled above

special guideways by magnetic forces (see photos) and

are probably capable of traveling at top speeds of close

to 300 miles per hour. The maglev propulsion and

guideway are quite unlike those of steel-wheel trains,

which are mechanically driven along rails, and a maglev

system would require entirely new infrastructure, as

well as new vehicles. In contrast, high-speed rail technology is well developed in other countries and could

be implemented relatively quickly in this country on

existing railroad rights-of-way if tracks are upgraded

appropriately. However, proponents assert that maglev

systems are the most promising and exciting new technology for making intercity travel faster and more comfortable and energy efficient in the more distant future.

Photo credit: Magnetschnellbahn AG, Railway Technical

Research Institute, HSST Corp.

Three major maglev systems are being developed: the highspeed German Transrapid and Japanese MLU, and the lowspeed Japanese HSST.

-3-
4 . New Ways: Tiltrotor Aircraft and Magnetically Levitated Vehicles

Photo credit: Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. and

Boeing Helicopters

The V-22 Osprey tiltrotor can fly with its rotors in any position from vertical to horizontal.

Tiltrotor aircraft, developed and tested for a variety

of missions by the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA) and the Department of Defense (DOD), can fly like both a helicopter and an

airplane. Pivoting engine/rotor assemblies, mounted

on each wingtip, permit a tiltrotor to takeoff and land

like a helicopter at sites as small as the roof of a parking

garage when the rotor thrust is vertical. When the

rotors are tilted forward 90 degrees, the tiltrotor can

cruise as fast as a propeller-driven commuter airplane

(see photos). Supporters claim that these characteristics would allow commercial tiltrotors to offer

significant door-to-door time savings compared with

similar trips on jetliners and to add capacity to congested airports because tiltrotors do not require runways to operate.

Although distinctly different, maglev and tiltrotor

systems have several common policy and market issues,

●

●

●

●

●

including the following:

The busiest travel corridors over distances between 100 and 500 miles are the primary target

markets for each. Time-sensitive service would

be their initial niches in these markets.

Tiltrotor and maglev systems would expand domestic transportation capacity, and might help

relieve congestion in other modes.

Western European and Japanese companies are

developing commercial maglev and tiltrotor-like

systems, and see the United States as a key market.

Additional public support for research, development, and demonstration is necessary, if U.S.

industry is to seriously consider producing commercial maglev or tiltrotor technology in the next

decade. The amount of new funding required

would exceed $200 million for commercial tiltrotor and substantially more for maglev.

Regardless of where the technology is developed,

each system must overcome institutional hurdles

to succeed commercially in the United States—

difficulty in financing, Federal safety regulations

that are not yet established, local community

objections to the impacts of new transportation

operations and infrastructure, and the need to

compete with established transport modes=

Despite these commonalities, tiltrotor and maglev

differ in many ways. For instance, although they would

compete directly in some market areas, each would be
Chapter 1—Summary ● .5

likely to develop its own specialty markets. Landing

facilities designed for tiltrotors are relatively inexpensive to build;l however, tiltrotors, with their vertical

flight capabilities, cost more to produce, operate, and

maintain than comparable conventional airplanes (but

cost substantially less than helicopters). A tiltrotor

network’s key advantage is avoiding airport and some

road congestion. The aircraft’s strength is providing

fast point-to-point service between relatively small

transportation market points and independent of runway locations. In contrast, guideway right-of-way, materials, and construction for high-speed trains, whether

maglev or rail, will generate most of the costs, while

operating expenses per passenger are (or might be, in

the case of maglev) lower than those for aircraft for

short trips. Maglev (and high-speed trains) are best

suited for routes with large passenger volumes, where

frequent departures would allow them to compete with

airlines and possibly attract time-sensitive travelers

from other modes.

While tiltrotor and maglev could both seine intercity commercial travel, each has the potential for other,

differing applications. Existing tiltrotors have been

developed primarily for military missions, and similar

aircraft could fill other public roles, such as emergency

evacuation, or serve industry needs-offshore oil rig

support, for example. maglev trains already carry passengers on short, low-speed transit lines in Germany

and England, and regional transit, commuter, and light

parcel service might be feasible if maglev’s potential

for low maintenance costs cart be realized.

The U.S. technical base is also distinctly different

for each of these technologies. The United States has

had Federal programs to develop and test tiltrotor and

other advanced vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL)

aircraft for decades. Although the military tiltrotor

(V-22 Osprey) design is unsuitable for most commercial transport applications, civilian tiltrotor development would benefit from the engineering and

operational experience of the military program. The

support of these Federal programs has provided U.S.

industry with a 5-year lead worldwide in being able to

produce commercial tiltrotors, if a Federal decision is

made to pursue such a goal. On the other hand, the

Federal Government has invested little in high-speed

ground transportation research during the past 15

years. (A decade-long Federal high-speed ground

transportation research and development (R&D) program ended in 1975.) Western European and Japanese

industries have roughly a 5- to 10-year lead in bringing

maglev to the market. They have also been producing

and operating high-speed rail systems for years.

Issues

tiltrotors and maglevs are each a part of broader

transport categories, VTOL aircraft and high-speed

ground transport, respectively. Neither category is

used much in commercial passenger service in the

United States, although high-speed trains are widely

used in Europe and Japan, where these systems are

expanding. Moreover, both tiltrotors and maglevs have

technical development requirements that must be met

before a commercial system could be implemented.2

While both new technologies are likely to have performance advantages over other types of VTOL or

high-speed rail, this promise alone is not enough to

assure their success in competition with other forms of

transportation. Potential operators and entrepreneurs

for each must also face and overcome the significant

institutional and community barriers to establishing

new transportation systems. To cite just one example,

tiltrotors and maglevs have significantly different design and performance characteristics than conventional

aircraft and rail systems, and current Federal safety

regulations must be developed or changed to address

each of these new technologies.

maglev and High-Speed Rail Systems

Across the country, States, local authorities, and

private groups have seriously investigated the potential of high-speed ground vehicles, both maglev and

rail, to meet their transportation needs. In each case,

the investigating group has planned on purchasing

currently available foreign vehicle technology and using U.S. expertise for guideway development and construction. However, because public programs have not

been available to fund infrastructure development, an

1 A metropolitan ve~ipo~ mpab]e of handling 1 million passengers annually would cost around $40 million to establish.

2 In the ~nt~ Of groun d transw~ation, speeds a~ve 150 mil=perhour (mph) are considered “high. ’’Amtrak’s Metrolineroperata at 125

mph on certain track segments between Washington, DC, and New York City.
6 . New Ways: tiltrotor Aircraft and Magnetically Levitated Vehicles

intercity, high-speed ground corridor has yet to be

successfully financed in the United States.

Technology Development

maglev technology is being developed primarily in

Japan and Germany, where major, long-term, government-supported research programs are under way. A

German consortium, formerly known as Transrapid

International, 3 has developed a maglev system to the

preproduction prototype stage and tested it extensively

at a facility in Northwest Germany at a cost of over $1

billion. The first U.S. commercial use of maglev, scheduled for Orlando, Florida, beginning in 1995, will use

Transrapid technology. The Japanese Railway Technical Research Institute, supported by the recently privatized Japanese Railways, has invested $1 billion in

developing a maglev system. A 27-mile test facility is

under development for possible inclusion in a future

revenue line between Tokyo and Osaka. An extensive

4-year test of the system is expected to commence in

1993 at a total cost of around $3 billion with earliest

commercial service feasible by 2000. The other major

Japanese system is the HSST, originally sponsored by

Japan Airlines, but now a separate, private enterprise.

Somewhat similar to the German Transrapid design,Q

the HSST has been demonstrated extensively, but only

on tracks shorter than 1 mile. The HSST uses a lighter

and less costly guideway than other maglev concepts,

but the maximum design speed is less than 200 mph.

These efforts overseas have raised concerns that the

United States is falling further behind in an important

new technology. In 1990 the National maglev Initiative

(NMI) was created—a 2-year, $30 million program

now in its first phase, to evaluate the engineering,

economic, environmental, and safety research needs

for a U.S. maglev system. The three-organization NMI

team—comprised of staff from the Department of

Transportation (DOT), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Department of Energy-is slated to

report its findings in fall 1992 and to include among

them a recommendation on whether to pursue future

maglev development domestically. The results of NMI

investigations will help in evaluating foreign maglev

performance and in deciding whether or not to commit

major public funds for a U.S. maglev program. In

conjunction with NMI, DOT is also examining highspeed rail technologies for their potential contributions to mobility in the United States.

Sustained funding through completion of NMI’s

initial phase will be needed if the team is to develop

the information Congress must have to decide how

much and what kinds of future support it wishes to

provide. The NMI study findings are not likely to be

available in time for fiscal year 1993 transportation

appropriations deliberations. Consequently, Congress

may wish to provide follow-on funding for a transition

year for the most promising Federal efforts, while the

near-term Federal role in maglev technology development is debated.

Research efforts to reduce the costs of materials and

construction, address the health effects, and limit the

environmental impacts are critical to the future of

maglev. Communication, automation, and passenger

safety investigations would benefit a variety of maglev

designs, and understanding the health effects of electromagnetic fields is important for the future of all

electrically powered transportation systems.

maglev Implementation

Both maglev and high-speed rail will need new,

grade-separated guideways for high-speed service, but

steel-wheel trains could also operate at low speeds on

existing tracks that are in good condition. maglev vehicles and guideways are intrinsically linked, and the

German and Japanese prototype maglev vehicles each

have unique, incompatible guideways. While it is too

early to establish standards for maglev, uniform guideways will be crucial to bring costs down if intercity

maglev is ever to be established on a nationwide scale.

Intermodal connections and adequate access to stations from other modes of transportation are also

important for success.

The relative intercity market potential of maglev

and high-speed rail will depend on factors specific to

3 The ~nso~ium has been expanded and renamed Magnetschnellbahn AG.

4 The HSSTUS= a susPnsion eoneept similar to Transrapid’s, but uses a different propulsion system.

5 Grade.separated refem t. elflating or depressing tracks or a guideway above or below roads, bridg~, or other st~ctures.
Chabter .1./—Summar.y ● 7

each route, such as right-of-way alignment, number of

stops, real estate costs, and projected ridership. However, only high-speed rail technology is proven and

ready for intercity service now. For the future, maglev

promises faster speeds, quicker acceleration, the ability to ascend steeper grades, less noise, and better

energy efficiency than rail at similar high speeds.

maglev and high-speed trains would generate a variety of social advantages and costs that must be considered in public policies for these technologies.

High-speed trains operating on grade-separated tracks

are very safe; no passengers have been fatally injured

in either Japanese or French rail systems in high-speed

service. High-speed rail and maglev are relatively energy efficient at their operating speeds and, because

they use electricity for power, are not dependent on

petroleum and do not degrade the air quality in the

areas where they operate.6 These are societal benefits,

however, and do not at present constitute substantial

economic incentives to a potential operator other than

direct costs for fuel. maglev proposals, like those for

any new infrastructure, will encounter environmental

permitting requirements and are likely to generate

concern over noise under some conditions.

At this point, then, the largest cost difficulty for

maglev implementation lies in financing rights-of-way

and guideway construction. Revenues received on

bonds issued for some high-speed, intercity rail facilities are exempted from Federal income tax, but because State laws limit many types of tax-exempt

bonds, 7 tax incentives have so far not made a difference

for would-be high-speed rail or maglev developers.8

Tax-exempt bonds for other purposes are readily available to investors, and these circumstances are likely to

continue to make private sector financing difficult unless State laws are changed. Proposed highway

reauthorization legislation for 1991 would make it

easier for States to make highway rights-of-way available to other surface transportation systems, including

high-speed rail and maglev, and would permit funding

from the Highway Trust Fund under certain circumstances.

Tiltrotor Systems

tiltrotor’s commercial strengths are its abilities to

avoid ground access or airport congestion by providing

point-to-point service to conveniently located landing

facilities, feeder flights into airports where runway

capacity is saturated, and service to new points as

necessary without the need for runways. tiltrotor passengers and some aspects of the aviation system could

benefit from these services. Individual airlines, however, see mostly risks and no additional profits over the

status quo and have expressed little interest in pushing

for commercial tiltrotor development.

Technology Development

NASA and DOD have investigated a wide range of

advanced VTOL aircraft designs over the past four

decades, and have concluded that tiltrotors hold strong

promise for a variety of missions. The Federal Government has spent over $2.5 billion for XV-15 and V-22

tiltrotor development programs,9 and private industry

has invested another $200 million to $300 million on

military tiltrotor technology.l0 Experts estimate that

U.S. industry would have to inject around $1 billion to

$1.5 billion more to produce a commercial tiltrotor.11

Given the market and implementation uncertainties for commercial tiltrotors, private industry and

6 ~a] is the Pnmay fuel foru.s. electric ~wer@ants, providing 57 percent of all electricity generated in 1987. Nuclear power is the Souru

of 18 ~rcent of U.S. electricity. Coal and nuclear fuel raise other environmental concerns. See U.S. Congress, Office of Technolo Assessment,

Electric Power W%eelingandDealing.” Technology ConsiakrationsforIncreasing Competition OTA-E-409 (Washington, DC: U. . Government Y

Printing Office, May 1989).

7 U.S. @ngr&, Offiu of Technology Assessment, Rebui[dingthe Foundations: A SpecialReporton State andLocalPublic worh Finmchg

andkfanagemerq OTA-SET-447 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, March 1990), p. 58. “ 8 Rob@ COX, attomq, remarks at OTA Workshop on maglevand tiltrotor Transportation: System Concepts, Ecomrnkx+ and RegUlatOw

Issuea, Apr. 18,1991.

9 Bming ~mmercial A@lane Group et a]., civil tiltrotorM~io~ andA@icatio~Ph~e II: fie CommwcialPm~gwMar@ prepared

for National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Federal Aviation Administration, NASA CR 177576 (Seattle, WA Boeing Commercial

Airplane Group, February 1991).

IOFederal Aviation Administration, R~earch, Engineering, and Development Advisory committee, tiltrotor Technology StlbCOmmittee,

Report (Washington, DC: June 26, 1990), p. 12.

llphilip c. Nofine, ~w pr~ident, ~nlmercial Market D~elopment, Bell Heli~pter T~ron, remarks at OTA Workshop on maglev and

Tihrotor Technologies: Research, Development, and Testing Needs and the Federal Role, Feb. 6,1991.
8 ● New Ways: tiltrotor Aircraff Magnetically Levitated Vehicles

investors are not yet willing to commit the substantial

funds needed to develop a commercial tiltrotor. The

NASA/Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) civil

tiltrotor missions and applications studyl2 was completed to outline the actions necessary before such

development could occur. The study report recommended an intensive l-year planning effort followed by

a 3-year tiltrotor research and technology demonstration program to enable industry and public authorities

to decide”. . . whether creating a commercial tiltrotor

system is technically feasible, economically attractive,

and in the national interest.”l3

If funding is available, the most important technology development priorities for a commercial tiltrotor

program are improving rotor designs to reduce noise,

ensuring appropriate cockpit equipment and procedures, and developing flight tests and any necessary

equipment (such as a low-speed, air speed indicator)

to permit steep flight paths to and from landing facilities. However, without an assured financing stream,

larger tasks, such as quiet rotor design and flight testing, will not be undertaken.

Eurofar (a consortium of five European helicopter

manufacturers) has completed design studies and anticipates funding for development of a civil tiltrotor

demonstrator. Regardless of U.S. Federal and industry

decisions regarding tiltrotor, Ishida, a Japanese company, may sell the first high-speed VTOL in the civil

market. However, the aircraft Ishida is developing uses

a tiltwing, rather than a tiltrotor, and development and

production are occurring in the United States.

tiltrotor Implementation

The timesaving of tiltrotor service, which could be

substantial, hinge on well-situated vertiports. Since

tiltrotors do not need runways, 5-acre or smaller vertiports might be built at industrial areas, on waterfronts,

and above freeways or railyards, where locating a conventional airport would be impossible. (Vertiports can

also accommodate helicopters that meet noise standards.) Federal Airport Improvement Program grants

could be available for planning and building vertiports.

FAA has awarded around $3 million to State and local

authorities for civil tiltrotor and vertiport feasibility

studies, and the first public heliport designed to vertiport standards is being constructed with some Federal

financing at the Dallas Convention Center in Texas.

A tiltrotor network would change local noise patterns, consume more energy, and increase the amount

of air traffic relative to comparable service on conventional aircraft. Aircraft noise is a serious problem for

airport operators and airlines, and is the leading obstacle to community acceptance of vertiports. On the

other hand, knowledgeable engineers claim that less

noise will reach the ground from tiltrotors than from

conventional airplanes or helicopters. If tiltrotors

make inroads into the busiest intercity travel corridors,

they will increase substantially the number of daily

flights in the air traffic control (ATC) system. For each

shuttle jetliner flight replaced, three to five 40-seat

tiltrotors would enter the airspace, and appropriate

ATC facilities and staffing levels must be ensured, lest

tiltrotors overcome runway congestion, but overcrowd

segments of the airspace.

Findings and Options

Major findings and options that emerged from this

study are as follows:

●

●

maglev and tiltrotor concepts are technically

feasible. Prototype U.S. or foreign vehicles have

operated for more than a decade. Once installed,

these new modes could operate at speeds and

intervals that would provide door-to-door trip

times competitive with conventional air transport at distances up to 500 miles.

Some form of Federal financing will be required

if commercial maglev or tiltrotor technologies

are to be developed by U.S. industry in the next

decade. The options for Congress to consider

range from not funding future work on either

tiltrotor or maglev, to very large programs, costing as much as $2 billion or more over a 10-year

period. Congress will need to clarify its objectives

for supporting these technologies before it can

12Boeing ~mmercial Airplane Group et al., Of). Cit., footnote 9.

131 bid., p. i.
Chapter I—Summary ● 9

●

●

make wise decisions about Federal investment

levels.

If improved mobility, new transportation alternatives using U.S. technologies, and international competitiveness are the goals, Federal

demonstration and implementation assistance

programs must be established. Federal funding

commitments of $800 million to $1 billion are

likely to be necessary to develop a full-scale U.S.

maglev prototype over the next decade. About

$300 million in Federal fundswill be required for

civil tiltrotor technology development and testing. While these technologies would improve

mobility for their users, it is not clear that they

would make a measurable impact on traffic congestion levels for the general public.

If maintaining technological options for future

U.S. maglev and tiltrotor programs is important Federal R&D funding should be continued

at levels of at least $5 million to $10 million

annually for each area.

● Federal agencies will face additional oversight

and regulatory responsibilities—safety, environmental, and economic—that must be supported if maglev, tiltrotor, or other similar

systems are placed in service.

Technical Feasibility

Foreign high-speed rail technology is available now

for U.S. markets, and German maglev will be ready by

late 1992. The technical feasibility of safely carrying

passengers with tiltrotors is not seriously in doubt.

Once in operation, maglevs and tiltrotors could avoid

airport ground access and runway delays and offer

terminals closer to population or industrial centers. If

the maglev or tiltrotor vehicles departed as frequently

as airliners, they could save time compared with travel

by conventional air on particular short- to mid-distance routes.

Federal Financing

Developing tiltrotor or next generation maglev systems to the point of being established and commercially viable would cost billions of dollars. Without

Federal management and financial support for infrastructure and precommercial tiltrotor technology development and testing, U.S. industry will not produce

either commercial tiltrotors or maglevs in this decade.

Public support for infrastructure—rights-of-way for

maglev and specific ATC and landing facilities for

tiltrotor—will also be necessary, regardless of who

advances and sells the technology. OTA assumed that

Congress would choose to continue some level of Federal effort for each and has set some guidelines for

consideration on that basis. (Table 1-1 shows the steps

still necessary for an operational maglev or tiltrotor

system.)

tiltrotor

If Congress decides to continue the V-22 program,

enough engineering and operational experience might

be gained for industry and investors to make firm

decisions, either pro or con, regarding commercial

tiltrotor production. R&D that would make tiltrotors

and other VTOL aircraft and infrastructure more attractive to communities and airlines could be conducted over the next few years at present funding levels

of about $5 million per year.

If a higher priority is given to civil tiltrotor R&D

than at present, Federal options range from increasing

the percentage of vertical flight research funds devoted

to high-speed VTOL concepts to committing funding

of $60 million to $90 million per year for developing

and testing precommercial tiltrotor technology. The

3-year program suggested in the NASA/FAA report

would cost this amount annually, two or three times

the amount currently allocated for all NASA and FAA

vertical flight programs--and enough to enable U.S.

industry to decide on further investment.

maglev

Unlike the situation with tiltrotor, no established

U.S. military technology base exists for maglev development. Consequently, any research program for

maglev must be crafted carefully so that a range of

components and concepts can be studied at modest

expense through the prototype stage. Without a

“standard” maglev guideway, technology testing will

require separate facilities for each maglev configuration considered; conversely, establishing a standard

too early would limit the concepts that could be tested.

Significant further investment related to infrastructure needs would be necessary to test and demonstrate
10 . New WayS: Tiltrotor Aircraft and Magnetically Levitated Vehicles

Table l-l-Steps Still Needed for Operational maglev or tiltrotor System

Commercial tiltrotor maglev

Technolcgy development . . . . . .

Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Technology and safety

demonstration . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Federal regulatory

structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Legal and environmental

concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Financing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Competitive framework . . . . . . . .

Military V-22 program engineering and operating

experience; noise, flight path, and cockpit

research.

Conveniently located vertiports; terminal

airspace, routes, and procedures; air traffic

control (ATC) and navigation facilities.

ATC compatibility; community noise levels;

economic data; airline and passenger

acceptance.

Mostly exists--specific airworthiness and

operating standards for tiltrotors are being

developed. Initial vertiport standards have

been published.

Noise standards; local zoning.

Under existing policies, Federal support for

infrastructure possible but not for aircraft

development.

Airline cooperation is essential for tiltrotors to

operate. Individual airlines have wellestablished operations in highly competitive

short-haul markets and see mostly risks and

no additional profits in employing tiltrotors.

The higher direct operating costs of tiltrotor

service might have to be underwritten if

tiltrotors are to provide public benefits of

expanded airport capacity and reduced

delays and congestion.

Debate revolves around whether to develop new

U.S. designs or develop or buy foreign

concepts. low-cost guideways and reliable

switches are desirable.

Available and affordable rights-of-way; dedicated

guideways, bridges, grade separations,

electrification, communication and control

systems, and stations.

Construction methods; construction, operating,

and maintenance cost data; community and

passenger acceptance.

Not yet developed-some maglev design and

performance characteristics conflict with

current Federal Railroad Administration

(FRA) regulations. FRA is assessing the

applicability of current statutes and

regulations to the Orlando maglev and

developing waivers, guidelines, and possibly

new regulations for the project. The Orlando

project will be the basis for future maglev

regulations.

Noise during very high speeds; tight-of-way

agreements; health effects of electromagnetic

fields.

No Federal policy for funding maglev or highspeed rail technology development or

infrastructure.

Airline marketing power and large, established

route structure could be strong assets or

formidable opponents to intercity maglev.

Amtrak has operating authority for most routes

proposed for passenger-carrying maglev or

high-speed rail.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991.

vehicle operations under any concept. Federal options

range from follow-on funding for the NMI for a few

years at levels of about $5 million to $10 million per

year, to full-scale development of new maglev technology, which is likely to total more than $750 million.

Additionally, available and affordable rights-of-way

and financing for infrastructure are essential to maglev

operational feasibility. In fact, a Federal decision for

large-scale testing and demonstration might not lead

to wide implementation of a U.S. maglev technology

without a complementary policy to help establish

maglev infrastructure.

Other Decision Factors

Maintaining a broad Federal transportation research base in these and other promising technologies

along with extensive data on passenger travel patterns

would assist in deciding on and gearing up for a larger

scale development effort if conditions warrant it. Increasing concerns over environmental quality and U.S.

dependence on foreign petroleum might ultimately

require radically different domestic transportation systems, and high-speed, energy efficient maglev has

strong potential in this context. tiltrotors, on the other

hand, are heavy energy consumers, and offer less po-
Chapter l—Summary ● I

tential than maglevs for surface congestion relief. Both

maglevs and tiltrotors would diversify transportation

options and might lessen airport ground and air congestion, if passengers can be diverted from conventional air travel.

The most directly related issues are whether (or

when) intercity traffic congestion, petroleum consumption, or related environmental concerns will reach unbearable levels, and whether alternative transport

modes are viable solutions to these problems. Although dependence on petroleum as an energy source

is a recognized issue, there is no consensus on the

extent of future congestion, environmental or land-use

concerns, nor on the appropriate public policies for

addressing these problems. Thus, at present, no clearcut guidance for choosing among the more costly tiltrotor or maglev options emerges, using these criteria.

Technology Leadership

The national trade benefits and industrial competitiveness implications stemming from commercial development for both maglev and tiltrotor need further

study, especially if significant Federal support for a

U.S.-produced vehicle or the accelerated development

of infrastructure is considered. Currently, the United

States has about a 5-year development lead worldwide

in tiltrotor technology, and over one-half the potential

demand for commercial tiltrotors lies overseas, suggesting a possibly favorable trade position. maglev is

undeniably an exciting new surface transportation alternative, although the world market for U.S.-produced maglev is uncertain. Most locations that could

consider investing in maglev systems in the next two

decades-Western European countries and Japan—

have strong commitments to home-grown technologies.

However, regardless of where maglev technology originates, 75 to 90 percent of the expenditures for a maglev

system would go to construction and engineering firms

that prepare the right-of-way and put the infrastructure—guideways and stations—in place.

Improved Mobility

Each technology, if established, could improve domestic mobility. Congress may wish to give long-term

support or encouragement to either or both of these

technologies if improved mobility alone is a satisfactory goal. Implementing high-speed rail in selected

congested intercity corridors is a near-term way to

meet this objective.

Photo credit: National Railroad Passenger Corp.

The Amtrak Metroliner is the fastest train in North America,

reaching speeds of 125 miler per hour.

Neither maglev nor tiltrotor technology has yet been

demonstrated as practical for intercity passenger service, and the potential markets for these technologies

are difficult to predict with much confidence. The key

to commercial success for both tiltrotor and maglev is

shifting passengers from other modes, although a very

high-speed maglev is likely to attract some additional

discretionary travel. Though detailed demand studies

are under way, cost and performance projections currently appear insufficient to ensure economic success.

Some potential maglev routes, such as Los Angeles to

San Diego and Boston to Washington, might eventually be profitable.

Potential entrepreneurs will face significant community and institutional barriers to establishing new

transportation systems (see table 1-1 again), and such

issues are time consuming and potentially costly to

resolve. Moreover, if an intercity maglev, tiltrotor, or

high-speed rail system is put into place, their operators

will have to compete with the marketing power and

pricing flexibility of Amtrak and the large airlines.

tiltrotors would cost more per seat to purchase and

operate than conventional airplanes, and maglev routes

would need 3 to 5 million passengers per year just to

cover a 20-year amortization cost of the guideway at

typical air travel fares. Time-sensitive service, such as

business travel, is likely to be the initial market for

maglev and tiltrotor, if tickets are priced to recover

most of the capital and operating costs.
12 ● New ways: Tiltrotor Aircraft and Magnetically levitated Vehicles

It is not clear from studies to date that either of

these new technologies will provide substantial relief

for intercity congestion and delays, making them questionable Federal investments solely for that purpose.

Moreover, without public willingness to finance infrastructure, neither transportation alternative will be

realized.

Federal Responsibilities

Additional research and FAA certification are

needed for civil tiltrotor. FAA is well positioned to

certify a V-22 for civilian test and demonstration purposes by 1995 if a sponsor requests it and aircraft are

available, because it has worked closely with DOD to

collect data from the military V-22 flight test program.

FAA has low-level programs in place to develop and

establish operating regulations, airspace requirements, and technology for advanced vertical flight that

could be accelerated if made a priority. Noise standards

for tiltrotor have to be finalized to aid in vertiport

planning. l4

The present Federal Railroad Administration

(FRA) safety and regulatory framework for conventional railroads cannot be applied directly to maglev or

high-speed rail, and FRA’s technical and regulatory

expertise in these areas needs further bolstering. FRA

is working with foreign authorities and developing

guidelines for maglev and high-speed rail. However, a

separate safety evaluation for different types of technologies, including a total system safety approach for

maglev and high-speed rail, is also warranted. FRA’s

ongoing efforts need expansion and additional support

if a thorough system safety program is to be developed.

Issues related to the health consequences of electromagnetic fields also require investigation and standard

setting. Congress will want to ensure that programmatic support is available to explore these questions,

if it decides to pursue implementation of U.S. or foreign technologies.

14Noise standards are established for helieoptem (14 CFR 36) and heliport planning (14 CFR 150).
CHAPTER 2

Introduction

and Background
CONTENTS

Page

Common Issues for maglev and tiltrotor . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Financing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....16

Regulatory Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. .. . . . . . . ... ......16

Potential Markets and Service Capability . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....16

Community Acceptance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .....17

International Competition and U.S. Technological Leadership .. . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . .......17

IntercityPassenger Travel in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,. ....17

Intercity Travel Markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....................,19

Passenger Travel Patterns in Other Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Key Differences Between U.S. and Foreign Markets . . . . . .. . ., ...,,.+, .. .. .+. ..+. ....24

Box

Box Page

2-A. Passenger Travel Databases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Figures

Figure Page

2-1. Population Trends in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....17

2-2. Forecast and Trends in Population, Automobile Use, and Airline Operations ... .......18

2-3. U.S. Intercity Passenger Travel by Public Carriers and private Automobile ... ... ......18

2-4. U.S. Intercity Passenger Travel by Modal Share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .......19

2-5. Population Density of Selected Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......,..25

2-6. Private Passenger Vehicles per 1,000 population, 1910-W .. +, ... .,. .., .. ... ...,,.26

2-7. Gasoline Prices unselected Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ,., ,., ,26

Tables

Table Page

2-1. Domestic U,S. Air Travel for 1988 Between Major Urban Areas Separated by

Less Than 600 Miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .+ +. .,. ,., ,.,.20

2-2. Projected U.S. Domestic Air Travel for Year 2000 Between Major Urban

Areas Separated by LessThan 600 Miles . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . . . . .. . ... ...,...20

2-3. Roadway Congestion Changes in Major Urban Areas, 1982-89 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....23
CHAPTER 2

Introduction and Background

Each year more people and goods travel between

major cities throughout the world. Fueled by growing

and shifting populations, economic development, and

changing industry operating practices, this travel demand is straining the capabilities of transportation

infrastructure at more and more locations for longer

periods of time. Meeting this demand by paving more

highways and runways, however, inevitably brings increased petroleum consumption, air pollution, noise,

and real estate development, and is heatedly opposed

by most communities. Public officials and the transportation industry are taking a close look at new technologies, including magnetically levitated (maglev)

vehicles and tiltrotor aircraft, as they consider various

investment and management options to address future

transport needs.

maglev vehicles resemble either monorail cars or

sleek trains and are lifted and propelled above special

guideways by magnetic forces, unlike steel-wheel trains

that are mechanically driven along rails. Commercial

maglev systems could attain speeds in excess of 300

miles per hour (mph). Several foreign countries have

invested substantially in maglev technology development, and low-speed maglevs now regularly carry passengers in transit service in Berlin, Germany, and

Birmingham, England.

tiltrotors, developed and tested by the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and

the Department of Defense (DOD), can fly like both a

helicopter and an airplane. Pivoting engine/rotor assemblies, mounted on each wingtip, permit a tiltrotor

to takeoff and land like a helicopter at sites as small as

a rooftop when the rotors are vertical, and let it cruise

as fast as a propeller-driven commuter airplane when

the rotors are tilted forward 90 degrees.

High-speed maglev and military tiltrotor vehicles

may be operating regularly in the United States in the

next few years. The German Transrapid 250-mph maglev is slated to operate on a 13.5-mile Orlando Airportto-International Drive route in Orlando, Florida, as

early as 1995. The V-22 Osprey tiltrotor could be delivered to U.S. Marine Corps squadrons by 1995 if the

Federal Government decides to proceed beyond the

present full-scale development testing.

Proponents claim that for roughly the same price as

an airline ticket, commercial tiltrotors and maglev

vehicles could help get travelers to destinations 100 to

500 miles away quicker and more reliably than can

existing transportation systems. But even if hundreds

of commercial tiltrotors can be sold, tiltrotors will still

cost roughly 40 to 45 percent more to build than similarly sized aircraft.1 And, since 75 to 90 percent of total

maglev costs come from the guideway, a maglev route

will need millions of riders per year if its capital costs

are to be recovered through fares.2 Thus, each technology will need substantial market demand if it is to

provide alternative service at equivalent trip costs to

airlines. Understanding future travel patterns is important for assessing the potential of these technologies.

The Federal Government is conducting some modest research and development and operational feasibility studies of maglev and civilian tiltrotor technologies.

The Department of Transportation (DOT), the Department of Energy, and the Army Corps of Engineers

recently began the National maglev Initiative to assess

the engineering, economic, and environmental aspects

of maglev. A major program report, planned for fall

1992, will consider whether to pursue future development of U.S. maglev capability. Additional studies of

conventional and high-speed rail systems are under

way by the Transportation Research Board, the Federal Railroad Administration, and the Volpe National

Transportation Systems Center.

Since 1988, the Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA) has awarded grants for 17 tiltrotor airport or

1 See ch. 3 for details.

2 See ~ho 4 fordetai]s.

-15-
l6 ● New Ways: Tiltrotor Aircraft and Magnetically levitated Vehicles

“vertiport” planning and feasibility studies, and most

should be completed by the end of this year. NASA

DOD, and FAA have jointly funded studies3 examining civil applications and promising markets for tiltrotor technology. Vertical flight research and

technology programs are established at FAA and

NASA.

Common Issues for maglev and Tiltrotor

In DOT’s National Transportation Policy, articulated in 1990, the United States is urged to “. . . take

full advantage of new and emerging transportation

technologies.” 4 maglev and tiltrotor aircraft are identified as options for advancing U.S. transportation

technology and expertise and for meeting high-density

intercity transportation needs. Although maglev and

tiltrotor systems are distinctly different from each

other, a number of Federal policy issues and potential

markets overlap for these technologies.

Financing

The commercial viability of each transportation

mode in the United States—aviation, railroads, motor

carriers, marine—has depended heavily on Federal

support, primarily for infrastructure or right-of-way.

Additionally, the Federal Government has developed

(directly and indirectly) various vehicle technologies.

A prime example is aviation, where virtually every key

commercial technology originated in the military, and

where NASA has an explicit mission to investigate

technologies with potential commercial application.

Programs such as maglev and tiltrotor development

require large cash outlays over long periods while the

work is underway, and in some cases, amortization of

infrastructure investment takes several decades, far

exceeding the patience of private investors. Public financing seems essential if extensive tiltrotor or maglev

systems are to be developed in the United States.

Moreover, use of public resources, such as some air

rights over interstate highways, may also be necessary.

Regulatory Framework

tiltrotors and maglevs have significantly different

design and performance characteristics than conventional aircraft and rail systems, and neither are fully

addressed by current Federal safety regulations. Executive branch agencies will have to establish appropriate safety, environmental, and economic oversight

responsibilities if maglev, tiltrotor, or other comparable systems are placed in service, and some agencies

have this process under way.

Potential Markets and Service Capability

The busiest air travel routes are the primary target

markets cited by both maglev and tiltrotor proponents.

If terminals can be located close to population and

industrial centers, maglevs and tiltrotors might offer

quicker point-to-point travel for trips under 500 miles

than comparable service via major airports.

maglevs and tiltrotors might help relieve environmental and congestion problems in other transportation modes. maglevs are not dependent on petroleum

for power, do not degrade air quality where the vehicles

operate, and are expected to be more energy efficient

than the current and future jetliners with which they

would compete in many travel corridors. tiltrotors

could expand the capacity of busy airports by replacing

some commuter flights, thereby making runway slots

available for larger airliners. Both modes might improve mobility by offering alternatives if ground and

air congestion in conventional transportation becomes

too severe. However, to reduce overall congestion or

energy consumption, favorable market conditions and

possibly transportation and energy policies that encourage efficient use of resources might have to be in

place to induce enough passengers and operators to

switch from conventional modes to maglevs and tiltrotors. Moreover, there is no consensus about the

accuracy of transportation congestion and delay forecasts, and about whether and when short-haul transportation alternatives might be warranted or could be

effective.

3 Boeing Commercial Airplane CO. et al., Civil tiltrotor Missions and Applications: A Research StuajI, prepared for Federal Aviation

Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and Department of Defense, NASA CR 177452 (Seattle, Wk Boeing

Commercial Airplane Co., July 1987); and Boeing Commercial Airplane Group et al., Civil tiltrotor MiNions and Application Phase II: The

Commercial Passenger Markq prepared for National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Federal Aviation Administration, NASA CR

177576 (Seattle, WA Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, February 1991).

4 u-s. Depa~ment of Tra~spo~ation,M ovingA~e~ca: ~~~i~ec~i~~, New oppo~nities (Washington, DC: Februa~ 1990), p. vii.
Chapter 2-lntroduction and Background ● /7

Community Acceptance

Community concerns about transportation noise

and land use will be major factors in determining

whether tiltrotor or maglev systems can be established.

Noise is a problem for transport operators across all

modes but is especially serious for airports and airlines, restricting present operations and blocking further growth in some instances. Community groups

fighting to curb the noise of airport operations have

limited airport development across the country.

If tiltrotors and maglevs are able to provide suitable

alternatives to conventional air travel, both technologies could reduce the demand for new airports. Proponents claim that maglev and tiltrotor operations will

be quieter in urban areas than conventional trains and

aircraft, respectively, but whether such noise levels are

acceptable has yet to be determined.

tiltrotors and maglevs will require new infrastructure. Changes in traffic patterns, aesthetics, and property values that could stem from these facilities and

operations will be closely scrutinized by local zoning

boards.

International Competition and U.S.

Technological Leadership

The United States was closely involved in early

practical maglevs and tiltrotor research but developed

only tiltrotor to the point of full-scale testing. U.S.

aerospace still maintains a favorable balance of trade,

and Europe, the Far East, and developing countries

are potential markets for tiltrotors. However, the administration tried, unsuccessfully, to eliminate military tiltrotor funds in fiscal years 1990 and 1991. A

Western European consortium is developing commercial tiltrotor technology and a Japanese company plans

to produce a similar vertical flight vehicle based on

tiltwing technology. Some contend that if the military

V-22 program is terminated, foreign-produced aircraft

could win control of any potential U.S. (and world)

advanced vertical flight market.6

Federal funding for maglev ended in the United

States in 1975. A decade later, German and Japanese

companies were marketing maglev technologies in this

country.

lntercity Passenger Travel in

the United States

The migration of people from rural locations and

inner cities (see figure 2-1) to suburbs has drastically

altered traffic patterns and volumes in metropolitan

areas.

7 Business activity has become more decentralized as employers followed workers.8 Automobile use,

virtually required for living or working in the suburbs,

has grown steadily, regularly passing expected levels

(see figure 2-2). For the intercity commercial traveler,

these trends have resulted in longer and more congested trips to get to an airport or rail terminal. During

the past decade, airline deregulation spurred rapid

growth in passenger travel and encouraged air carriers

to concentrate flights at hub airports, leading to considerable delays when using the busiest airports.

Figure 2-l—Population Trends in the United States

100

al

$ t /

a)

a

80 -

*

60’5

40

2 0

I

01 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I i 1 I 1

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990

+ Urban + Suburban + Rural

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, based on U.S. Bureau of

the Census data, 1991.

5 Seminal magnetic levitation research (for electromagnetic suspension) began in Germany in 1922.

6 Federal Aviation Administration, Research, Engineering, and Development A&&q committee, tiltrotor Technology Subcommittee;

Report (Washington, DC: June 26, 1990), p. 15.

7 Us. Department ofTranspofiatiori,~ationa/ Transpotiation StrategicPlanningStudy (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Offi%

March 1990), p. 5-1.

8 Ibid., p. 5-10.
l8 . New Ways: Tiltrotor Aircraft and Magnetically levitated Vehicles

Figure 2-2-Forecast and Trends in Population,

Automobile Use, and Airline Operations

250

230 -

210 -

190 -

170 -

150 -

130 -

110 -

90 

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

+ Highway VMTa

-e- Airline operations

+- Population

a

VMT = vehicle-miles traveled. bTakeoffs and landings.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991, based on information from the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal

Aviation Administration, and the U.S. Bureau of the Census.

In the United States, the automobile has been the

mode of choice for domestic intercity travel since the

1930s (see figure 2-3), although commercial aviation

passenger travel grew at a faster rate until the past few

years (see figure 2-4). The growth of both modes was

encouraged by public policies and funding. Trips by

automobile can be significantly cheaper, especially for

group travel, and more convenient than by other

modes. For distances under 100 miles, cars generally

provide the quickest way of getting from door to door.

However, as trip distance increases, travel time by auto

falls further and further behind rail and air modes.

People for whom trip time is the deciding factor, such

as business travelers, depend heavily on airlines for

intercity trips.

Airlines carry most commercial intercity passengers, although rail service is significant in the Northeast and California. Air travel began to dominate the

common carrier market in the mid-1960s, and has

steadily increased its share despite the creation of Amtrak in the 1970s. These trends suggest that any new

high-speed transport system will have to focus, initially

at least, on strong air travel markets. However, the

volume of highway traffic to draw on is so large that if

a tiny fraction of automobile users were to switch to

maglev or tiltrotor, it would be significant for the

Figure 2-3-U.S. intercity Passenger Travel by Public Carriers

and Private Automobile

/ +

6

@

s 0“5[ .-

v-

$ w’ + w * 4/ 4 .

I I I I I I } I mI I I I I 1 I 0’ “ 1 I I I I I I 1 I 1 II I I I I I 1 I I I I

1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990

+ Auto ~ public Carriers

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991, based on data in Eno Foundation for Transportation,

Transportation in America (Washington, DC: 1990).
Chapter 2-lntroduction and Background ● 19

Figure 2-4-U.S. Intercity Passenger Travel by Modal Share

100% - 100%

90% ~ A- “ 90%

80% - -

80%

1’20%/=----

10% - -

10%

+

0% 0%

1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990

+-Auto + Commercial air +-Bus ~ Rail

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment 1991, based on data in Eno Foundation for Transportation, Transportation in America (Washington, DC: 1990).

ridership of these new modes. Moreover, the first two

high-speed maglev routes proposed for the United

States are primarily automobile markets.9

Inter-city Travel Markets

Population and distance strongly influence the volume of passengers traveling between two areas. In

general, passenger traffic increases as population

grows, and, other things being equal, travel between

two cities will be greater the closer they are.l0 The

busiest travel corridors are centered on the largest

cities, but cultural, political, industrial, and geographical factors also affect intercity travel.

What constitutes an intercity travel market, or city

pair, depends on how travel origins and destinations

are defined. One way to define each end of a city pair

is to use the Department of Commerce’s metropolitan

statistical areas-losely linked urbanized regions that

extend across jurisdictional boundaries. A key characteristic of a market suitable for maglev or high-speed

rail may be the potential for connecting the city pair

with a single guideway (with branches or closely spaced

stops in the metropolitan areas). For example, both

the Los Angeles basin and the San Francisco Bay area

cover a large region and are served by multiple airports, but theoretically only one double-track guideway would be necessary for the 250 miles or so between

the outskirts of these broad locales. Guideways, of

course, are not a factor for tiltrotor, and these market

boundaries are not precisely applicable to tiltrotor

market analyses. Commercial tiltrotor operators

might serve routes with too few passengers for rail or

maglev, since tiltrotors have relatively modest ground

infrastructure requirements.

The largest travel corridors in the United States

with trip distances suitable for maglev or tiltrotor are

along the east and west coasts. DOT statistics on origin-to-destination airline travel indicate that the busiest corridor lies between San Francisco and Los

9 two are to International Drive in Orlando, FL, and Anaheim, CA to 

 volumes, planners sometimes use the gravity model, so named it is similar to the formula for

calculating the gravitational force between two objects.
20 . New Ways: tiltrotor Aircraft and Magnetically Levitated Vehicles

Table 2-l—Domestic U.S. Air Travel for 1988 Between

Major Urban Areas Separated by Less Than 600 Miles

Table 2-2—Projected U.S. Domestic Air Travel

for Year 2000 Between Major Urban Areas

Separated by Less Than 600 Miles

City pair

One-way

passenger

trips

(millions)

Ims Angeles . . . San Francisco

New York . . . . . Boston

New York . . . . . Washington

Los Angeles . . . Phoenix

Dallas . . . . . . . . Houston

San Diego . . . . San Francisco

Los Angeles . . . Las Vegas

Chicago . . . . . . Detroit

Las Vegas . . . . San Francisco

Los Angeles . . . Sacramento

Boston . . . . . . . Washington

Chicago . . . . . . Minneapolis

Detroit . . . . . . . . New York

Chicago . . . . . . St. Louis

Buffalo . . . . . . . New York

Phoenix . . . . . . San Diego

Dallas . . . . . . . . San Antonio

New York . . . . . Pittsburgh

Chicago . . . . . . Washington

Dallas . . . . . . . . Austin

Las Vegas . . . . Phoenix

6.6

3.4

3.3

2.6

2.0

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.3

1.1

1.1

1.0

0.9

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

Distance

between

city pairs

(miles)

347

191

214

348

222

447

221

238

408

383

400

344

489

256

293

304

253

329

596

187

255

SOURCE: Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, 1991.

Angeles, ll with the Northeast Corridor city pairs of

New York-Boston and Washington-New York in second and third places, respectively (see table 2-l). When

travel only between specific airports is examined, Boston Logan-New York LaGuardia and Washington National-LaGuardia are the leading routes. If the trend

of migration to the Sunbelt continues, one DOT report

estimates that by the year 2000 the only eastern or

Midwestern city pairs in the top 10 markets will be

Washington-New York and Boston-New York, and

they will be third and fourth, respectively (see table

2-2). However, when highway traffic is included, the

Northeast Corridor is more traveled than anywhere in

Europe or North America.

Many factors in potential markets will have to be

examined closely to determine if maglev or tiltrotor

service is feasible. How many terminals are needed and

where to locate them in a metropolitan area are aspects

critical to the total trip-time advantage of these technologies. Additionally, local opposition to new infrastructure development and transportation operations

may put some markets out of reach.

One-way Distance

passenger between

trips city pairs

City pair (millions] (miles)

Los Angeles . . . San Francisco

Los Angeles . . . Phoenix

New York . . . . . Washington

New York . . . . . Boston

Dallas . . . . . . . . Houston

Los Angeles . . . Las Vegas

San Diego . . . . San Francisco

Las Vegas . . . . San Francisco

Los Angeles . . . Sacramento

Phoenix . . . . . . San Diego

Las Vegas . . . . Phoenix

Dallas . . . . . . . . San Antonio

Dallas . . . . . . . . Austin

Chicago . . . . . . Detroit

Boston . . . . . . . Washington

Chicago . . . . . . Minneapolis

Detroit . . . . . . . . New York

12.8

6.5

5.2

4.7

4.5

4.1

3.7

3.1

2.6

2.3

2.0

2.0

1.9

1.8

1.7

1.5

1.2

347

348

214

191

222

221

447

408

383

304

255

253

187

238

400

344

489

SOURCE: Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, 1991.

Passenger Travel Data

Public data on passenger transportation in the

United States is sparse (see box 2-A). Commercial

carriers gauge intercity passenger volumes from ticket

receipts, and the major airlines, with reporting requirements stemming from the days of the Civil Aeronautics Board, provide what public detail there is on

air passenger travel. Automobile travel statistics, when

compiled, usually focus on local transportation or are

based on gross assumptions. For example, passengermiles traveled by automobile in the United States are

calculated from Federal fuel tax revenues. For common carriers and automobiles alike, only city-to-city or

terminal-to-terminal passenger travel estimates can be

made—precise origin-to-destination patterns are not

well understood. All together, passenger data are sufficient for identifying the largest transportation markets and for estimating traffic volumes, but a better

picture of how people travel door-to-door and how

factors other than price affect travel demand is necessary for predicting with much certainty the ridership

potential of new high-speed transportation systems. In

support of the National maglev Initiative and FAA

civil tiltrotor studies, DOT’s Volpe National Transll~is corridor includes four airports in the LOS Angeles metropolitan area (Los Angeles, Burbank, Orange county, and Ontario) and three

airports in the Bay Area (San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose).
Chapter 2—introduction and Backround ● 21

Box 2-A—Passenger Travel Databases

Public data on intercity passenger travel are limited primarily to statistics reported by commercial carriers

and to occasional surveys of automobile users. This information is sufficient for identifying the largest intercity

travel corridors but provides little insight into the specific trip origins and destinations and passenger decision

factors that will be critical in planning maglev or tiltrotor routes. Door-to-door travel time and cost are

important factors in passenger choice of transportation modes, and little public data exist on total trip times

and expenses. 1 The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) found that intercity rail and air passenger data

were adequate for analyzing a possible high-speed rail system but that highway data were deficient.2 Moreover,

data on transportation congestion and delays, crucial factors for maglev and tiltrotor viability, are generally

crude.

Airline passenger statistics, a legacy of the era when U.S. airlines were closely regulated, are superior to

those of other modes. In 1985, the Department of Transportation (DOT) assumed the former Civil Aeronautics Board’s responsibility for collecting data on airline operations, traffic, and finances, and the primary source

of airline passenger data is the Uniformed System of Accounts and Reports for Large Certificated Air

Carriers.3 Large airlines, those that operate aircraft with more than 60 seats, are obligated to report operating,

financial, and passenger data by airport and aircraft type and in total. Since these reports do not identify specific

passenger travel patterns, DOT requires certain air carriers to collect a statistically valid sample of passenger

tickets for each route and to report trip origins and destinations, connecting or stopover points, and the dollar

value of each ticket.4 Demographic information, which often underscores changes in travel patterns, is not

contained in these reports. Travel agents and airlines with extensive computer reservation systems keep more

detailed, but proprietary, databases of passenger characteristics important for market forecasting.

Because Amtrak and Greyhound bus lines have a virtual monopoly on intercity passenger rail and bus

transport, respectively, ticket information available in the companies’ annual reports gives some indication of

traffic volume. The Nationwide Personal Transportation Study (NPTS) administered by the Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA) gives information on daily household travel patterns, offering some insight on

dentographic and household trends. However, because trips over 100 miles account for only 0.7 percent of all

trips, the NPTS is of little value in determining intercity volume.5 Another drawback is the infrequency of the

study. A 12-month study recently begun in 1990 is the first one conducted in 7 years.

The U.S. Travel Data Center, a private organization, also surveys Americans on their travel patterns. Each

month the center conducts a National Travel Survey (NTS) of 1,500 adults, collecting data on trips longer

than 100 miles taken during the previous month. The NTS is primarily a data source for the travel industry,

but DOT has used NTS results in compiling intercity trip information.

Unlike public carriers, automobile use does not entail a ticket purchase. Consequently, gathering highway

passenger data is problematic. Local transportation authorities usually understand commuting patterns in

their own communities, but a nationwide picture of automobile travel is lacking.

There are two major sources of highway data managed by FHWA: the Highway Performance Monitoring

System (HPMS) and the NPTS, neither of which is very helpful in determining intercity travel patterns. States

report to HPMS on pavement condition, miles, and use for a sample of 102,000 miles of collector and arterial

IJohn p. O~Donnell, Volp Nationa] Transpo~ation Systems Center, personal communication, June 1991.

zBewUse of ~ovenment Opration of Amtrak, Pa=nger rail data are much easier to obtain. Arthur B. so~lau, “SUrface TmnsPor”

tation Data Needs, Resources, and Issues,” Transportation Research Record, No. 1253, January 1990, p. 43.

3

14 CFR 241.

4At least 1 ~rwnt of the total ti&et~ for large domestic markets and 10 percent for other markets are included ‘n ‘

ach ~rnPle.

Sso=]au, op. cit., footnote2!p“44”

Continued on next page
22 ● Ways: Tiltrotor Aircraft and Magnetically Levitated Vehicles

Box 2-A, continued

roadways. Although these statistics include vehicle-miles traveled, HPMS data provide little information on

intercity travel since they contain no origin-destination data,

Transportation congestion and delays are difficult to quantify reliably and consistently. For example,

FHWA has yet to develop a surface congestion measurement system. Local authorities can usually monitor

road congestion, but the information is often not incorporated at the Federal level where it can be used on a

nationwide basis. And even if the data were included in Federal studies, lack of coordination between agencies

that gather information makes a complete picture of travel patterns difficult.6

DOT maintains three aviation delay reporting systems. Air traffic controllers record the numberof flights

delayed by 15 minutes or more and the cause of the delay. Separate delaying events, such as waiting for takeoff

clearance or rerouting because of weather, go unreported if each event results in delays of less than 15 minutes,

although the total delay for the flight might exceed 15 minutes.

The Federal Aviation Administration also collects data directly from certain airlines on all delays,

regardless of length, and the phase of flight in which they occur. This Standardized Delay Reporting System

(SDRS) once accounted for 25 percent of all air carrier flights. Due to industry financial difficulties, only one

airline currently provides data to SDRS.7 The third database, DOT’s widely publicized compilation of airline

on-time performance, indicates how well airline schedules anticipate delays.

To address data concerns, the DOT budget for fiscal year 1993 calls for the resumption of the NTS

(different from the one conducted by the U.S. Travel Data Center), which was abandoned in 1977. This

multimodal survey would help determine regional travel patterns more completely. The actual details of what

would be included in the survey have yet to be ironed out.

6U.S. ~n ress, office Of TeChnOIO

9 /?

Assessment, Deliverin the Goods: Public Works Technologies Management, and Financing

OTA-SET-47 (Washington, DC: U.S. overnment Printing Of [U, April 1991), p. 11.

7Jam= Mc&fahon, Offjw of system &paCity and R~uirements, Federal Aviation Administration, pe~nal communi@ion! MaY

23,1991.

portation Systems Gmter is examining various local cxpcctcd, and might bc feasible for maglev or tiltrotor

travel surveys and will try to project inlercity Iravcl by

zones representing different parts of metropolitan areas.12 Furthermore, high-speed rail planners have improved their methods for estimating ridcrsh ip in recent

high-speed rail systcm proposals.ls

Air travel data offer less information on commcr:id

travel potential between cities less than 150 miles

apart, because conventional aircraft offer little time

savings, if any, over surface rnodcs on these routes.

However, some of these markets, such as HoustonAustin, Los Angeles-San Diego, Phoenix-Tumon, and

Portland-Seattle, have greater air travel than would bc

scrvicelq

Transportation Forecasts

The consensus among Transportation forecasters is

that intcrcity travel, and the demand for roads and

airports, will continue to grow well into the next centuty. Population growth, economic strength, and past

traffic patterns arc the primary factors for travel forecast models. Population data and forecasts are detailed

and generally reliable, but information on passenger

travel by automobile, and mcasurcmcnts of highway

and air traffic congestion, arc crude.

12~go p M~ngini, dcpu[y ~ssoci:j[c ~dminis[r:i[or for P:+sscngcr an(i l;rcight Scrviccs, l;dcriil Railroad Administration, personal

communication, July 1, 1991.

13Joseph Vranich, ] ]igh Speed ]<ai] Association, personal cornmunicatmn, JuI}~ 27, 1991.

14John B. I Iopkins, “Overview of Intcrclty Passenger Travel,” Pas.vmger ‘lratqxwtatim in lli<qh-[kmi~’ Corridim (Cambridge, MA U.S.

Department of Transportation, Vo]pc Nat ional ‘1’ransporta(iol) SVs(cms Ct’ntcr. Novemtwr 1990), p. 4.
Chapter 2—lntroduction and Background ● 23

The most prominent population trends include the

shift from the Northeast and Midwest to the Sunbelt,

the continuing migration to the Nation’s metropolitan

areas and the decentralization of these same cities, and

the increasing number of households. A combination

of economic and demographic factors have contributed to the steady increase in automobile traffic. In the

1960s, traffic trends directly reflected population

growth. However, traffic continued to increase steadily, even though the U.S. population growth rate decreased during the past 20 years. The number of

households and workers increased about one-third

faster than the total population during this period,

helping spur this demand for automobile travel.l5

According to Texas Transportation Institute data,

the past decade has already seen a significant increase

in road congestion in major metropolitan areas (see

table 2-3). Nationally, average urban congestion increased by 16 percent between 1982 and 1989, and

congestion in cities such as Los Angeles, Washington,

DC, San Francisco, and San Diego grew two or three

times this rate during the same period. Congestion

data on highways between cities are not as readily

available.

FAA figures indicate that both the number of airline flights and the average time delayed per flight

increased by about one-third during the past decade.l6

However, most of this growth was prior to 1987. Nevertheless, FAA predicts that the number of congested

airports will nearly double, to 41, by 1998.17

Events such as energy crises or even macroeconomic cycles that are difficult to predict make forecasting the demand for new transportation projects and

infrastructure precarious. Environmental, demographic,

and cultural changes and transportation industry strategies will also affect future travel, but are difficult to

quantify and predict using mathematical models. For

instance, policymakers lost interest in Federal High

Speed Ground Transportation Act programs over a decade ago, when the dire predictions of gridlock on the

highways and airways of the Northeast Corridor failed

Table 2-3-Roadway Congestion Changes in

Major Urban Areas, 1982-89a

City Percent change

San Diego . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

San Francisco-Oakland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Seattle-Everett. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Los Angeles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Sacramento . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Austin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Portland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

OrIano . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Dallas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Boston . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

San Antonio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Miami . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 19

Chicago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Baltimore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

San Bernardino-Riverside . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Fort Worth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

San Jose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Tampa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Pittsburgh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Philadelphia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Houston . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 2

Detroit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 4

Phoenix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –lo

aCongestion level is based on the Roadway Congestion Index (RCI)

developed by the Texas Transportation Institute. The RCI calculates

roadway mobility by combining average traffic volume per lane-mile for

freeways and principal arterial streets, accounting for total vehicle-miles

traveled and the capacity of each type of road.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, based on Texas Transportation Institute, “1989 Roadway Congestion,” Research Report

1131-4, 1991. .

to materialize. However, surface and air traffic did

continue to grow, and public and private entities took

steps to increase highway, aviation, and rail capacity.

The extent of future intercity traffic jams is difficult

to assess because congestion forecasts are based on inadequate databases (see box 2-A again) and the implicit assumption that automobile drivers and airlines

will continue to try to squeeze more vehicles into saturated locations. Airline strategies rather than passenger demand sometimes govern congestion, especially

at hub airports. For example, at the four airports expected to be the most severely congested by the turn of

the century-Chicago O’Hare, Dallas-Fort Worth, At15u.s. Depa~rnent of Transportation, op. cit., footnote 7, pp. 1-7 and 5-8.

16According to the Federal Aviation Administration’s Standardized Delay Reporting System database, airline delays averaged 11.8 minut~

per flight in 1980 and 15.6 minutes per flight in 1988.

17u.s. Depafirnent of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, 199t9-91 Aviation System Capaci~ Pfan, DOT/FAA/SC-90-l

(Washington, DC: September 1990), p. 1-13.
24 . New Ways: tiltrotor Aircraft and Magnetically Levitated Vehicles

.

lanta, and Denver—the majority of passengers fly in

just to change planes for another destination.l8

Changes in operating practices and vehicle occupancy

rates in the air and on the ground could dramatically

alter congestion levels. Additionally, changes in energy

or environmental costs to vehicle operators and advances in telecommunication technologies could alter

the demand for transportation.

National leadership is a crucial ingredient for efficient transportation, but local communities often establish land-use and development policies that lead

directly to metropolitan gridlock. Local citizens and

the airline industry have a strong say in airport development and have, for the most part, delayed or squelched

airport expansion in urban areas. The only new major

airport (the replacement for Denver Stapleton) now

being built in the United States was opposed by the

dominant hub airlines at Denver. Due in part to the

reluctance of these airlines, the initial plans for the

airport have been scaled back, and recent forecasts for

passenger travel through the airport have fallen significantly from projections made in the mid-1980s.l9 Generally, there are fewer congestion problems on the

intercity portions of the transportation infrastructure,

such as airways and highways, than on local segments.

Passenger Travel Patterns

in Other Countries

Public policies have created entirely different travel

conditions overseas, and the largest commercial intercity transportation markets in the world are in Western

Europe and Japan, regions with higher population

densities and more closely spaced cities relative to the

United States. Each of the countries depends strongly

on conventional and high-speed rail for medium length

trips, and some are developing or planning to develop

maglev vehicles and tiltrotor-type aircraft. However,

since public policies, economies, and social structures

differ markedly overseas, transportation comparisons

with the United States, including the market potential

of maglev and tiltrotor systems, must be viewed with

caution.

Key Differences Between U.S.

and Foreign Markets

Japan and the countries in Western Europe have

population densities from 4 to 13 times that of the

United States (see figure 2-5) and more of their people

live in urban areas. However, certain regions of the

United States are densely populated. For example, the

population density in the Northeast Corridor between

Massachusetts and Washington, DC, is slightly higher

than that of central Europe.

With low automobile and energy prices in effect

since the 1920s and a widely spread populace, the

United States focused its transportation policies, relative to those of other countries, more on aviation and

private automobiles than on surface transit. The level

of auto ownership attained by United States in the

1930s was not reached by war-torn Western Europe

and Japan until the late 1960s and early 1980s, respectively (see figure 2-6). Consequently, these areas had

to address mass transit modes such as rail. Now, the

private automobile dominates local and intercity travel

in every developed country.20

The major difference between travel in the United

States and its overseas counterparts is in the role of

public carrier modes. Geographic and political factors,

such as having dominant transportation corridors, encouraged passenger rail development in Europe and

Japan. For example, the Japanese corridor of TokyoNagoya-Osaka contains one-half of Japan’s people but

only 10 percent of Japan’s land area. Similar situations

exist in European countries, with the capital cities of

London and Paris dominating British and French lives,

respectively. In the United States, no single region has

the political strength to garner the lion’s share of

Federal transportation funds. In Europe and Japan,

trains carry the majority of commercial passengers,

whereas in the United States, almost all common carrier travel is by air. However, airlines have been increasing their market share in Europe and may continue to

gain if bureaucratic barriers and prices fall as Europe

deregulates its air carrier industries during the next

decade.

18u.s. ~ngress, offim of Technology Assessment, Safe Skies for Tomorrow: Aviation Safey in u Competitive Environment OTA-SET-381

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1988), p. 33.

lgJ&n p. C)’llome]l, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, personal communication, June 28,1991.

20u.s. Depa~ment of Transportation, op. cit., footnote 7, p. 6-7.
Chapter 2—introduction and Backround . 25

Figure 2-5-Population Density of Selected Countries

A

. -UJ

s

m

c

. -0

12 -

10 -

8 -

6 -

4 -

2 -

0

United France Central U.S. United

States Europea Northeast Kingdom

Corridor b

West Japan

Germany .

%Vest Germany, Italy, United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Switzerland.

b M=sachuse&, Connecticut, Rhode New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, District of ‘f

Pennsylvania, and one-half of New York.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991, based on data from National Transportation Systems

Center, and Population Reference Bureau, World Population Data Sheet (Washington, DC: 1989).

Moreover, other countries find it much easier to

cross-subsidize transportation operations. Because

many foreign rail operations, and some air service, are

traditionally government-owned monopolies, or nearmonopolies, financial assistance for transportation industries is an expected part of national spending.2l

Automobile fuel taxes amounting to $3 per gallon in

some countries (see figure 2-7) help raise general revenues and support the more energy-efficient and environmentally sound public transit systems. Most

European countries reinvest into roads about one out

of every three dollars they receive in highway fees and

taxes. The comparable U.S. spending ratio is about

one-to-one, but U.S. taxes and transportation-related

fees are much lower than in Europe, so the U.S. total

is less. In other parts of the world, such as Argentina

and Australia, governments draw considerably on general revenues to finance highways.22

Although the infrastructure for each transportation

mode in the United States was initially provided with

public funds, new Federal financial support for transportation facilities that is not backed by user fee revenues

draws fire from competing interests. Urban Mass Transit

Administration grants for mass transit are supported

by a 1.5-cent-per-gallon tax on gasoline, but in general,

transportation trust fund dollars do not cross modal boundaries. Proposals to allow flexible and cross-modal use of

highway funds by States have been introduced in

recent surface transportation legislation in Congress.

 France are reportedly 

 of Transportation, op. cit., footnote 7, p. 6-10.

297-906 - 91 - 2 : QL 3
26 ● New Ways: Tiltrotor Aircraft and Magnetically Levitated Vehicles

Figure 2-6-Private Passenger Vehicles per 1,000

Population, 1910-90

600,

500 -

400 -

300 -

200 -

100 -

0

1910 1930 1950 1970

=#- U.S. + Europea

-W Japan

a

Average for France, Germany, and the United Kingdom.

NOTE: 1990 values as estimated from 1987 data.

SOURCE: Volpe National Transportation Systems Center,

1990

Figure 2-7--Gasoline Prices in Selected Countriesa

$4

$3

$2

$1

$0 U.S France Germany Italy Japan U.K.

- Tax per gallon Base price per gallon

a

1988 dollars.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991, based on data in

Editors of the Economist, The Economist Book of Vital World

Statistics (London, England: The Economist Books, Ltd.,

1990).

1990.
CHAPTER 3

tiltrotor System Issues
CONTENTS

Page

tiltrotor System Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Congestion Is the Key . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

State of the Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● 35

Military and Civilian tiltrotor Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......•35

Other High-Speed VTOL Aircraft Programs . . . . . . . . . . ..... ,., . .., ,. .,.... .. .,......35

Research, Development, and Demonstration Needs

for Commercial tiltrotor Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....3 9

Market and Economic Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

tiltrotor Economics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● ● . . ● . . . ● . . . ● ........44

tiltrotor Service Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Domestic and Worldwide Potential Market

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Institutional Framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

tiltrotor Safety Oversight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

..• ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50

Environmental Issues and Community Acceptant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..... ,,, .,. ,50

Role of the Airlines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Financing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Findings and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ● ..54

Boxes

Box Page

3-A Federally Funded Civil tiltrotor Studies . . . . , . . . . . , , . . , , , , . , . . . , , . , 31

3-B. VTOL Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . 36

3-C. Current Helicopter System Issues . . . . . . . . . , . , , . . . . . . , , . , . , . , , . . . 52

Figure

Figure Page

3A-1. tiltrotor Configurations . ..,..........,. . . . . .., . . . . . . . . . . 32

Tables

Table Page

3-1. tiltrotor System Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. ● . ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

3-2. Characteristics of a Hypothetical Northeast Corridor tiltrotor System for Year 2000 ...35

3-3. Noise Data and Federal Noise Standards for Aircraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., .....,...,.,40

3-4. NASA and FAA Budgets for tiltrotor and Other Vertical Flight Technology Programs .43

3-5. Comparative Economic Data for Commercial tiltrotors Operating in the

Northeast Corridor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............4 7

3-6. Market Potential for 40-Seat Commercial tiltrotor in Year 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .., ..49

3-7. tiltrotor System Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
CHAPTER 3

tiltrotor System Issues

A major irony of the jet age is that most of the time

spent in airline travel is on the ground. For airline trips

under 700 miles or so, passengers spend over one-half

their total journey’s time on the roads surrounding

airports, at the terminal, and in the aircraft while it

taxis and waits for takeoff clearance or an available

gate after landing.1 Ever since helicopters entered civilian service soon after World War II, transportation

planners have envisioned intercity air travel virtually

from doorstep to doorstep. Proponents claim that tiltrotor aircraft, which can fly like both helicopters and

airplanes, hold the promise of such service at trip costs

comparable to freed-wing aircraft flights and offer options to increase the capacity of congested airports.

However, there are enough concerns about community acceptance, adequate infrastructure, and market

demand that private industry is not yet willing to risk

investment capital to develop commercial tiltrotor aircraft.

when the rotors are in the vertical position, but when

the rotors are tilted forward 90 degrees, the tiltrotor

flies like an airplane. tiltrotors and similar “poweredlift” vehicles bridge the speed and range gaps between

helicopters and airplanes.5 Possible applications for

tiltrotors include helicopter missions where increased

speed and range are important, such as search-and-rescue missions, and conventional fixed-wing flights

where avoiding air and ground congestion, delays, or

restrictions is particularly valuable. However, the focus of this study is on tiltrotor use for scheduled intercity travel only.

The V-22 Osprey, currently under full-scale development for a variety of military missions, is the technology base for a U.S. civil tiltrotor. Five V-22 aircraft

are to be used in the flight test program. As of June

The helicopter is the most familiar aircraft design

with vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) capabilities

but has never been widely used for scheduled intercity

transportation. Fundamental speed and payload limitations put helicopters at a distinct economic disadvantage to comparable commuter turboprop aircraft,

whose operating costs are three to five times lower.2

However, many other VTOL concepts, including some

with the performance potential of conventional airplanes, have been examined during the past four decades.3

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration

(NASA) and the U.S. military are developing one such

VTOL vehicle, a tiltrotor called the V-22 Osprey,4

which has pivoting engine/rotor assemblies mounted

on each wingtip. The aircraft operates like a helicopter

Photo credit: Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc.

Designed for a variety of military missions, the V-22 Osprey

tiltrotor is now in full-scale development.

 A National Transportation Asset,” promotional booklet, 

2 No. 164.

3 the takeoff and landing that have helicopter and vectored-thrust 

4 National and Administration tiltrotor aircraft known as the in the 

De of Defense tiltrotor program is for a larger, multipurpose the V-22 Osprey.

The Federal Aviation Administration certification standards cover three broad classes of aircraft: airplanes, and manned balloons.

Powered-lift aircraft establish a new since they can fly at high speeds like airplanes and go slow, possibly hover, and takeoff and land vertically (or near vertically). These vehicles use jet or rotor thrust for lift, control, and propulsion—hence the term “powered-lift.” Airplanes

create lift primarily from the airflow over the wings that results from vehicle movement; is fore and aft only, and contributes little to control and lift.
30 ● New Ways: tiltrotor Aircraft and Magnetically Levitated Vehicles

1991 these aircraft have accumulated more than 550

flight hours.6 U.S. manufacturers could develop and

produce a market-responsive7 tiltrotor by the end of

this decade if favorable travel demand estimates are

established and supportive national transportation

policies are put in place.

The Department of Transportation and NASA are

conducting modest tiltrotor research and development

(R&D) and operational feasibility and market assessment studies. Since 1988, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has awarded grants for 17

vertiport planning and feasibility studies, most of

which should be completed by the end of 1991. FAA

NASA and the Department of Defense (DOD) have

jointly funded studies8 examining civil applications

and promising markets for tiltrotor technology, and

the latest study concludes that civil tiltrotors could be

competitive with fixed-wing aircraft in certain markets,

provided adequate air and ground infrastructure is in

place and tiltrotor operations prove to be acceptable

to communities, air carriers, and the traveling public

(see box 3-A).9

tiltrotor technology may have implications for national competitiveness in aviation industrial base

strength, international technology leadership, balance

of trade, and domestic transportation productivity.

Currently, the United States has more than a 5-year

development lead worldwide in tiltrotor technology.l0

Over one-half the potential demand for commercial

tiltrotors lies overseas.11 OTA has recently completed,

or has under way, studies on international trade and

industrial policies, including aviation industry issues

regarding Japan and Western Europe.l2

There is also foreign interest in developing highspeed VTOL aircraft and in producing commercial

products. Eurofar, a European consortium of five helicopter manufacturers, has plans to develop a commercial tiltrotor prototype over the next 5 years, with

support from their governments. Japan is hoping vertical flight will overcome some of its severe transportation constraints. A Japanese organization has

announced plans to construct a network of over 3,000

heliports across the country by 2020.13 After viewing a

V-22 flight demonstration at Bell Helicopter’s Fort

Worth plant, Japan’s Minister of International Trade

and Industry reportedly said, “If you build it, we will

buy it. If we can’t buy it from you, we will build it.”14

Japan’s Ishida Group is financing the development of

a 14-passenger tiltwing for corporate and business

markets.

Tiltrotor System Concepts

As a basis for discussion of commercial tiltrotor

technology and its potential for intercity transportation, this section describes a generic, commercial passenger tiltrotor system. The description is not meant

to imply that the concept is practical or recommended.

tiltrotor applications other than common carrier service are not considered.

Congestion Is the Key

Transportation limitations within our busiest intercity corridors make tiltrotor service potentially attractive. Traffic delays on the roads and airways

surrounding airports lengthen an air traveler’s journey, and coping with future aviation traffic growth will

entail changes in highway systems as well as airport

6 s~nlq w. ~ndebo, 1fo~~~ey might Tats Suspended After Crash of Noe 5 Aircraft,’’ Aviation Week& Space Technolo~, VO1. 134, No. 24,

June 17,1991, p. 54.

7 The V-22 d~ign is not considered suitable for most commercial applications (see later SeCtiOIM).

8 Bwing ~mmerc.al Aiwlane ~. et ~l., civil Til@otor M&io~ ad Applicatio~: A R~e~& SIUC$I, prepared for Federal Aviation

Administrationt National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and Department of Defense, NASA CR 177452 Seattle, WA Boeing

Commercial A@ane Co., July 1987); and Boeing Commercial Airplane Group et al., Civil TiZtrotor Missions and App!ications Phase 11: The

c ommercial Passenger Markt, repared for National Aeronautic and Space Administration and Federal Aviation Administration, NASA CR

177576 (Seattle, WA Boeing &mmercial Airplane Group, February 1991).

9 Boeing commercial Airplane Group et al., Phase II Draft Final Report, Op. cit., footnote&p. 1-3.

lophilip C. No~ne, ~w pr~ident, ~rnrnercial Market Development, Bell Helicopter TefirOn, personal communication, July 18,1991.

llBoeing Gmmercial Airplane Group et al., Phase 11 Summary, op. cit., footnote 8, p. 23.

12u.s. ~ngr~, Offi= of Technology _ment, compe~g Economi~:A~”cq Euro~, and the Pacific Rim (Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office, in press).

13Japan Heli Ne~ork ~., Ltd., promotional materials for Helicopter Association International Heli-Expo W, Feb. 4-6,1990, Dallas, TX.

14Frank J. Gaffnq, Jr., director of the center for Security poli~, tmtimony at h~rings before the House committee on Public wOdCS and

Transportation, Subcommittee on Aviation, Apr. 25,1990.
Chapter3-tiltrotor System Issues . 3l

Box 3-A-Federally Funded Civil tiltrotor Studies I

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

(NASA) began to consider civil applications of tiltrotors seriously during the early 1980s, after the military

decided to develop tiltrotor technology for a new multiservice, multimission vertical takeoff and landing

(VTOL) aircraft. In 1985 FAA proposed a joint civil tiltrotorstudywith NASA and the Department of Defense

(DOD) to “. . . assess the broader implications of the V-22 aircraft development to the nation as a whole. This

includes the potential for other versions and sizes, both civil and military, civil certification issues, civil

production impact on the defense industrial base and any indirect technology spinoffs. . . .“l NASA DOD,

and FAA awarded a $1-million study contract to Boeing Commercial Airplane Co., teamed with Bell

Helicopter Textron Inc., and Boeing Helicopters to investigate potential commercial, corporate, and public

service markets, ground and air facility requirements, and various aircraft configurations and technologies

(see figure 3A-l). The summary final report, Civil tiltrotor Missions and Applications: A Research Study,

published in July 1987, concluded that a 39-passenger version with a pressurized fuselage had significant

market potential resulting from reduced ground transportation requirements, congestion relief, and infrastructure investment savings.2 However, civil tiltrotors would have higher purchase and operating costs than

conventional airplanes and would encounter possible stumbling blocks from certification, infrastructure

development, public acceptance, and technological maturity. The study concluded that near-term civil tiltrotor

development depends on the success of the V-22 program.3

NASA and FAA funded a follow-on tiltrotor study4 by the same contractor team, which financed 45

percent of the project costs. This “Phase II" study focused on the commercial passenger market and investigated

in greater detail the operational factors and technology development considerations. The study found that

commercial tiltrotor purchase price and operating costs will likely be significantly lower than estimated in the

Phase I report, resulting in an expanded potential market. However, the gist of the findings were similar to,

but more detailed than, those in the preceding report. Specific urban-to-urban and hub airport feeder routes

offering strong market potential were examined in detail. In certain markets, costs to passengers for ground

transportation and airline tickets were found to be less via 39-seat commercial tiltrotors traveling between

well-situated landing facilities than via trips on similarly sized airplanes flying out of major airports.

The Phase II study recommended forming a public/private partnership of organizations representing

Federal, State, and local government and industry interests to create a 4-year program,5 costing roughly $250

million,6 to assess the national benefits of a commercial tiltrotor system and to determine if such a system

would be feasible. The Phase II study recommended that the Department of Transportation take a leadership

role in forming the partnership. Industry and government support and participation would be essential, and

the centerpiece of the program would be a series of operational demonstrations using XV-15 and V-22

tiltrotors. Commercial product development or production was not proposed.

Since 1987, FAA has allotted $2.94 million in Airport Improvement Program planning grants to local

sponsors across the United States for 17 vertiport feasibility studies. The studies arc examining the capital

costs and environmental factors in siting vertiports, passenger and shipper demand, traffic forecasts, and the

local economics of tiltrotor service. Most of the studies are to be completed by late 1991. FAA and the Volpe

National Transportation Systems Center are further examining the cost and market potential of commercial

tiltrotors and, through simulations, estimating the effects of tiltrotor operations on airspace congestion and

delays.7

IBO~i~g cO~~~rCi~l ~Wl~~~ CO. et ~l., civj/ Til&otor M~iom and Applications: A Research Smdy, Prepared for Federal A~ation

Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and Department of Defense, NASA CR 177452 (Seattle, WA Boeing

Commercial Airplane Co., July 1987), p. 6.

21bid.

31bid., p. 16.

4Boeing ~mmercial AiWlane Gr~up et al., Cib,il Tiltiotor M&ions and Applications Phase II: The Commercialp~~wMar@

F

repared for National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Federal Aviation Administration, NASA CR 177576 (Seattle, WA

“ebrua~ 1991).

51bid., phase 11 st.itmm-y, P. ‘i6John Zuk chief, Civil Technology Office, NASA Ames Research center, personal communication, APr. 1l! 1991”

7John p ()’~Donnell, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, personal ~mmuni=tion, June ‘t 19910

Continued on next page

—-— —.- —— — . .
32 . New Ways: tiltrotor Aircraft and Magnetically Levitated Vehicles

CTR 800

CTR 1900

CTR22A/B

CTR 7500

Figure

XV-15 size

(8 passengers)

New tiltrotor

(19 passengers)

V-22 min change

(31 passengers)

V-22 derivative

(39 passengers)

New tiltrotor

(75 passengers)

Box 3-A, continued

3A-1—Tiltrotor Configurations

● New high-wing design

● New low-wing design

● Nonpressurized fuselage

* New pressurized fuselage

u

. New low-wing design

SOURCE: Boeing Commercial Airplane Co. et al., Civil tiltrotor Missions and Applications: A Research Study,

prepared for Federal Aviation Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and

Department of Defense, NASA CR 177452 (seattle, WA: Boeing Commercial Airplane Co., July 1987).

————— ———— — — —
Chapter 3—tiltrotor System Issues ● 33

Photo credit: Bell Helicopter Texiron, Inc.

Accessible vertiports (shown in this artist’s conception) will be crucial to intercity commercial tiltrotor service.

infrastructure, especially the number of available run- make door-to-door travel costs comparable to using

ways. However, most metropolitan areas have few op- fixed-wing aircraft service from major airports.ls

tions for expanding airports or their surrounding

highways. Commercial tiltrotors offer the potential,

under various operating and public policy scenarios, to

avoid ground and air congestion, relieve some airport

congestion, and increase the capacity of constrained

airports. The prime markets for tiltrotor operations

are expected to be intercity passenger and airport

feeder service in the busiest air corridors. The Phase II

Civil tiltrotor Report by NASA and FAA indicates

that some passengers would have shorter and less

costly drives to get to a tiltrotor terminal than to an

airport, which would save significant time overall and

Successful commercial tiltrotor service hinges on

well-situated landing facilities, or vertiports. Since tiltrotors do not need long runways, 5-acre or smaller

vertiports might be built at accessible locations where

conventional airports would be environmentally unfeasible or prohibitively expensive, such as over interstate highways or near industrial facilities. Vertiports

co-located with airports could permit increased flights

to the airport without clogging runways. To take advantage of its flight capabilities, tiltrotors will require

some new air traffic control (ATC) technology and

 and Applications: A Research Op. cit., footnote 
34 . New Ways: tiltrotor Aircraftil and Magneticallv Levitated Vehicles

Table 3-1—tiltrotor System Description

Component Description Estimated costs

tiltrotor aircraft . . . . . . . . .

Vertiports . . . . . . . . . . . . .

En route airspace . . . . . . .

Terminal airspace . . . . . .

A twin-engine commercial tiltrotor derived from the military

V-22 would be comparable to a medium-size commuter

turboprop and could carry around 40 passengers up to 600

miles. It would be capable of vertical takeoff and landing,

but short takeoff and landing rolls would improve payload

or range. Tiltrotors could use existing airports, but 40-seat

versions would be too Iarge for many heliports. To compete

with airline shuttle service, passenger cabin noise,

vibration, and overall comfort levels will have to be at least

equivalent to that of the newest commuter aircraft, such as

the Boeing/DeHavilland Dash 8-300.

Vertiports could ideally be located closer to intercity

transportation destinations and origins than are major

airports. Design depends on location, but theoretically any

site with up to 5 acres and necessary surrounding clear

zones and compatible land use. Possible locations include

air rights ‘above freeways, waterfronts, parking garage

rooftops, industrial areas, and existing small airports, and

each vertiport could serve about 1 million passengers

annually.

En route between cities, commercial tiltrotors would fly in the

same relatively uncontested airspace between 10,000

and 20,000 feet above sea level used by commuter

turboprops. Since tiltrotors are smaller than the aircraft

they would replace (in intercity service), more flights would

operate in the airspace system for the same passenger

total.

In the airspace surrounding vertiports, optimal flight paths

would avoid conflicts with fixed-wing aircraft and permit

the steep approaches necessary to minimize tiltrotor

community noise levels. This requires ATC procedures and

technologies different from those currently used for fixedwing aircraft and helicopters. Some of these procedures

and technologies exist or are being developed.

Potential instrument approach paths are steep (6 to 15

degrees) compared with current helicopter and fixed-wing

aircraft procedures (3 degrees or less). Operations must

not conflict with existing airport traffic patterns.

Compared with turboprop aircraft, a

tiltrotor would cost around 40 to 45

percent more to produce and about

14 to 18 percent more to operate

(over a 200-mile trip).

$30 million to $40 million for an elevated

metropolitan vertiport.

tiltrotors are effectively turboprop aircraft

when flying en route, so the marginal

ATC rests would be the same as

those for conventional commuter

aircraft. Increased numbers of aircraft

operations might require additional air

traffic controller positions and

facilities.

Other aircraft types would use these

technologies and procedures, so

development costs need not be

attributed solely to tiltrotor.

KEY: ATC=air traffic control.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991, based on data from Boeing Commercial Airplane Group et al., Civil tiltrotor Missions and Applications

Phase //: The Commercial Passenger Market, prepared for National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Federal Aviation Administration,

NASA CR 177576 (Seattle, WA: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, February 1991).

procedures. Additionally, tiltrotor operations must be Conceptually, a network of 12 strategically located

viewed as acceptable by the local communities, the vertiports could handle most of the intercity passenger

traveling public, airlines, and financiers. Table 3-1 de- air traffic projected for the Northeast Corridor (NEC)

scribes the basic components of a commercial tiltrotor in 2000.16 Frequent tiltrotor departures to each destitransportation system. nation (30- to 60-minute intervals)l7 would reduce

16Boeing timmercia] Airplane Group et al., Phase II Summary, op. cit., footnote 8, p. 20.

l’7Depending on time of day, this is ~mparable t. current flight frequencies be~een some of the major Northeast Corridor airports.
Chapter 3—tiltrotor System Issues ● 35

Table 3-2—Characteristics of a Hypothetical

Northeast Corridor tiltrotor System

for Year 2000

Passenger volume . . . . 14 million passengers annuallya

Vertiports . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 nonairport metropolitan Iocationsb

tiltrotorfleet . . . . . . . . . . 164 40-seat aircraft

Operations . . . . . . . . . . . 1,524 flights per dayc

Average trip length . . . . 223 miles

aBoeing Commercial Airplane Co. forecast. Around 8 million airline

passengers traveled between the major Northeast Corridor airports in

1989.

bThe location and number of vertiports are: New York (6); Boston (3);

Washington, DC (2); and Philadelphia (l).

cApproximately 250 or so flights per day by passenger airlines currently

operate between the major Northeast Corridor airports.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991, based on data from

Boeing Commercial Airplane Group et al., Civil Tiltrotor Missions

and Applications Phase II: The Commercial Passenger Market,

prepared for National Aeronautics and Space Administration

and Federal Aviation Administration, NASA CR 177576 (Seattle, WA: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, February 1991).

total trip times for passengers by one-third (more than

an hour) on average relative to existing airline schedules. (Table 3-2 lists the characteristics of a hypothetical NEC tiltrotor system.) Most of the time saved

would result from shorter ground trips to and from

terminals.

State of the Technology

VTOL research vehicles that can also operate as

fixed-wing aircraft have flown since the 1950s (see box

3-B) —most were initially investigated for military purposes. Modern digital electronic controls, advanced

lightweight materials, and more powerful engines have

made these concepts more practical for operational

use, but only helicopters and vectored-thrust jets (e,g.,

the AV-8B Harrier jumpjet) have gone into production.

contract to Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. and Boeing

Helicopter Co., and the technical results to date have

been promising. First flown in March 1989, the V-22

has demonstrated flight with rotors tilted in all positions and cruise speeds up to 328 miles per hour

(mph).l8 The proof-of-concept predecessor to the V22, the NASA/DOD XV-15 tiltrotor research aircraft,

was developed in the 1970s. Two aircraft were built,

and both are still being used in civilian flight investigations, such as determining tiltrotor adaptability to urban vertiports.

Over $2.2 billion for V-22 development has been

spent or allocated since 1983, but the future of the

V-22 is precarious. The program was canceled by DOD

in fiscal years 1990 and 1991 budget proposals, only to

be reinstated by Congress each time. DOD again requested no funds for the V-22 in fiscal year 1992, and

at the time this report went to press, House and Senate

Committees on Armed Services had passed authorization bills that included V-22 funding for fiscal year

1992. Full-scale development, including flight tests,

has continued, but no production funds have been

used. If the V-22 program is continued, limited numbers of military aircraft could be produced by early

1995.19

No U.S. company has committed to developing a

tiltrotor for revenue passenger operations, and airlines

have shown little interest in this technology. Predesign

and planning studies have been funded primarily by the

Federal Government, with some cost-sharing by industry and local governments. NASA and FAA continue

to develop technologies applicable, but not necessarily

specific, to tiltrotor.

Other High-Speed VTOL Aircraft Programs

Military and Civilian Tiltrotor Programs

Military decisions in the early 1980s to develop a

multiservice tiltrotor aircraft sparked the interest of

some in the civil aviation community who thought that

the technology, industrial base, and operational experience of military tiltrotors would help overcome many

of the hurdles facing a commercial vehicle. The V-22

full-scale development program began in 1986 under

Presently, there is little VTOL aircraft competition

for the intercity transportation markets that a commercial tiltrotor could serve. New helicopters, such as

the Westland/Augusta EH-101, could carry 30 passengers at 150 mph on trips up to 500 miles, but operating

and maintenance costs are higher than the figures

projected for a civil tiltrotor. It is generally believed

that a VTOL aircraft would have to combine some

18Nomine, Op. cit., footnote 10.

l%bid.
36 ● New Ways: tiltrotor Aircraft and Magnetjcally Levtated Vehicles

Box 3-B—-VTOL Concepts

Advanced vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft designs aim to exceed the speed and range of

helicopters by overcoming rotor aerodynamic limitations. Rotating blades are both the “propeller” and the

“wings” for helicopters, and this duality is the key factor that restricts helicopter performance, When a

Bell UH-I Sikorsky ABC (XI-I-59A)

L

Bell xv-3

X-Wing Harrier jet

Photo credit: Helicopter Inc. (XV-3); Division of United Technologies

A wide range of vertical takeoff and landing aircraft that could fly faster than conventional helicopters have been examined,
Chapter 3—tiltrotor System Issues ● 37

Box 3-B, continued

helicopter hovers, each of its rotorblades experiences the same airflow over its surfaces. As the helicopter

moves forward, the retreating rotorblades encounter lower relative winds. Maximum practical helicopter

speeds are limited to around 200 miles per hour (mph),l at which point the airflow across the retreating blades

stalls, causing severe vibration and control problems. Various advanced VTOL aircraft concepts are shown

in the photos in this box and some are discussed below.

Compound Aircraft

Some of the lift and propulsive loads on helicopter rotors can be shifted to additional wings and horizontal

thrust engines, permitting such a compound helicopter to fly well above 200 mph. A Bell UH-1 helicopter

modified with two high-thrust jet engines reached 315 mph. Sikorsky Aircraft Division developed a compound

rotorcraft that used two counter-rotating, coaxial rotors for lift, called the advancing blade concept (ABC). 2

Using two horizontally mounted turbojet engines for propulsion, the experimental Sikorsky ABC (XH-59A)

reached 275 mph in level flight.

These Bell and Sikorsky compound helicopters were propelled by separate jet engines, making them

impractical for commercial purposes. The first compound helicopter using the same engines to power the

rotors and to provide significant thrust was the Piasecki 16H-1. A later version, the 16H-1A, reached 225 mph

in 1964.3

Houston-based Vulcan Aircraft Corporation has been developing a design with lifting fans embedded in

the wings. This fan-in-wing concept would receive vertical thrust from the fans for takeoff and landing, then

close off the fan disks with louvers and propel itself with jet thrust from the two horizontally mounted engines

(which also power the fans). Vulcan’s 6-seat aircraft is designed to fly 500 miles and 350 mph. Because the fan

disks are relatively small, fan-in-wings require about 10 times more power than a helicopter to lift the same

payload.

Tilt-Thrust Designs

Tiltwing and tiltrotor aircraft use the same rotors or propellers for both vertical and horizontal thrust by

redirecting the whole wing or the rotor systems only, reducing weight and drag penalties relative to compound

helicopters. Lift during cruise is provided by a wing, and maximum speeds are in the turboprop aircraft range

of 400 mph. tiltrotors and tiltwings are design compromises between helicopters and airplanes—their

rotors/propellers are too small to hover as well as those of helicopters but too large to be efficient in cruise

flight. In 1958, the Bell XV-3 became the first tiltrotor to successfully takeoff like a helicopter and then convert

to the airplane mode.

Stowed or Stopped Rotor Concepts

Compound helicopters capable of stopping rotors in flight and folding them up or converting the rotors

into fixed wings have the highest speed potential of any rotorcraft configuration. One design strategy is to fly

the rotorcraft fast enough to transfer lift to separate wings and then stop and fold the rotors. From this point

in cruise flight, the aircraft is basically an airplane, and maximum speed is a function of aerodynamic design

and engine power. Rotor blades, which are generally flexible, are difficult to stop or start during forward flight

because of the severe stresses and forces resulting from the blades’ flapping in the wind. A stowed- or

stopped-rotor aircraft has never flown. However, full-scale models of both stowed-and stopped-rotor systems

Ime ~or~d speed ~e~rd of 248 mile ~r hour was set by a modified Westland Lynx helicopter in 1986. E.A. Fradenburgh) @~iW

d

o Helicopters and VISTOL AircraJl and Basic Aerodynamics for Rotor Pe@rmance, Advisoty Group for Aerospace Research &

envelopment, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (AGARD, Neuilly Sur Seine, France: Advisory Group for Aerospace Research &

Development, 1990), p. 4.

@e advancing blades, balanced on both sides of the aircraft, provide most of the lift. Lift from the retreating blades is not critied,

and airflow stall is avoided.

3F N piasecki, president, piase~ki Aircraft Corp., pWSOtlal COIINIIUIkitioW JUIY 2,1991-

. .

Continued on next page
38 . New Ways: Tiltrotor Aircraft and Magnetically levitated Vehicles

Box 3-B, continued

have been tested in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) wind tunnels at Ames

Research Center.4

NASA and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency developed and tested technologies for a

different concept with very high-speed potential during the 1980s called an X-wing, but the program has been

scaled back to a low-level research effort, A four-bladed rotor provides vertical thrust like a helicopter rotor

for takeoff and low-speed flight and is stopped and locked into an “X” position relative to the fuselage and

serves as a wing for high-speed cruise. The X-wing design, if lightweight enough, could hover as efficiently as

a helicopter and fly as fast as a jet.

Vectored-Thrust Vehicles

Deflecting horizontal thrust downward to provide lift has been practical only for jet-powered designs,

since this concept requires the most power to lift each pound of aircraft and payload in vertical flight. The

British Aerospace/McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier jet, currently in service with the U.S. Marine Corps,

is a vector-thrust vehicle.

All these VTOL concepts pay a price for speed. Useful payload is always less than that carried by a

comparably sized helicopter, speed and range are always less than for similar airplanes, and complexity is

greater than in helicopters or airplanes. However, the combination of payload, speed, and range may make

one of these compromise designs the optimal choice, depending on mission requirements and economics.

xJOhH Fa Ward, p~~~id~~t, ward Associates, ~ersonal comrnunieation, JUne ~~ 1991”

the program is probably about 5 years behind U.S.

tilt rotor efforts.20 A U.S. company, Magnum T/l? Inc.,

of Salinas, California, is proposing to build a 9-seat

tiltrotor based on XV-15 technology for the general

aviation market.

Ishida Aerospace Research, Inc., a subsidiary of the

Ishida Group in Japan, could become the first company producing a high-speed VTOL aircraft for the

civilian market. Now in the design stage, Ishida’s TW68 tiltwing aircraft could perform competitively with a

civil tiltrotor and be delivered to its first customer in

1997. The 14-passengcr TW-68 is aimed at the private

Photo credit: Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. market, such as corporate travel, rather than commerAfter more than a decade of service, two XV-15 research air- cial transportation, although Ishida is applying for the

craft continue to test and demonstrate tiltrotor technology more stringent FAA certification to permit tiltwings

and flight procedures. to be used in airline operations. Other tiltwing experielements of fixed-wing performance to penetrate the ence includes the LTV-Hiller Ryan XC-142 and the

intercity transport market significantly. Eurofar has a Canadair CL-84 aircraft programs, which developed

30-seat commercial tiltrotor on the drawing board, but flying prototypes in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

20u.s. ~edcral agencies and indust~ have had many years of experience in developing and testing tiltrolor technology. l~owever, timing for

commercialization depends on additional factors, making it difficult to quantify a “lead. ”
Chapter 3—Tiltrotor System Issues ● 39

Photo credit: Ishida Aerospace Research, Inc.

The Ishida TW-68 tiltwing is designed for industrial and corporate service, and is expected to be developed and produced

in Texas,

To the casual observer, a tiltwing looks and operates

like a tiltrotor. However, the Ishida design, unlike the

V-22, does not incorporate helicopter systems—it uses

propellers, not rotors.2l Ishida expects this simpler

technology to keep tiltwing capital and maintenance

costs lower than those of comparable tiltrotors.zz

Since the wings tilt up for vertical flight, there is less

adverse downwash on the vehicle, which helps takeoff

power requirements. Unlike VTOL aircraft as large as

the V-22 (roughly 40,000 pounds), the 14,000-pound

TW-68 will be capable of using most existing heliports.

Many industry observers consider the tiltwing technically riskier than the tiltrotor.zs Possible tiltwing

disadvantages, relative to a tiltrotor, are the added

weight from mechanisms capable of tilting a full wing

and engines, less vertical flight and hover capabilities,

and poorer control and higher noise levels in vertical

and transitional flight.24

Research, Development, and Demonstration

Needs for Commercial Tiltrotor Systems

Commercial tiltrotor designs were considered technically feasible by all aviation experts contacted by

OTA. Fundamental tiltrotor principles have been

proven, and advanced flight test vehicles have flown for

over a decade. However, factors critical to commercial

success have yet to be demonstrated, including operational reliability and economics, exterior and interior

noise levels, and community and passenger acceptance. Moreover, supporting infrastructure—vertiports, facilities, and air traffic procedures-would have

to be developed and put in place to make tiltrotor

commercially practical.

Commercial tiltrotor Aircraft Issues

Regardless of decisions on the V-22 program, precompetitive technology development and testing applicable to all civil tiltrotor (and most other civil VTOL

aircraft) designs will be necessary prior to industry

commitment to produce commercial tiltrotors. Most

observers believe that the V-22 Osprey design is unacceptable for commercial operations, owing to economic and civil performance penalties inherent in

meeting military requirements, although some V-22

structural and propulsion designs and components

might be directly transferred to a commercial tiltrotor.

Options to create a V-22 derivative for commercial

transportation mostly involve design tradeoffs that will

depend on market economics, certification requirements, and industry decisions, and are not discussed

here.25 Rotor noise reduction, cockpit design, and

steep-angle flight systems are the main generic (R&D)

needs to help make tiltrotors commercially practical.

Noise—There is common agreement that the issues

related to aircraft noise in communities are major

obstacles to commercial tiltrotors, since their success-

 inherent or a from using provided complementary

control devices are also installed. Rotors are more complicated than propellers, enabling them to provide lift as well as power in flight.

22David Design, Inc., Dec. 

 Aircraft Division, Feb. 12,1991.

 communication, 

Fradenburgh, op. cit., footnote 23; and Robert Whitehead, assistant director for Aeronautics National Aeronautics and Space

Administration, personal communication, Feb. 6,1991.

 phase II at length commercial standards for a derivative.
40 . New Ways: Tiltrotor Aircraft and Magnetically Levitated Vehicles

Table 3-3-Noise Data and Federal Noise Standards for Aircraft

.

FAA noise standarda

40-seat tiltrotor noisec40-seat airplane noised

Airplane noise location (EPNdB )

b ‘ (EPNdB estimate) (EPNdB actual)

Under takeoff path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89.0 60.0 80.8

(6,500 meters from brake release)

To the side of takeoff path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94.0 74.0 86.3

(450 meters from the point where noise is greatest)

Under landing approach path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98.0 77.0 94.8

(2,000 meters from the landing threshold)

F/W noise standard 40-seat tiltrotor noise 44-seat helicopter noisee

Rotorcraft noise location (EPNdB) (EPNdB estimate) (EPNdB actual)

Under takeoff path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101.6 78.0 96.2

(point where altitude is 150 meters)

To the side of takeoff path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102.6 84.0 97.2

(150 meters from the point where noise is greatest)

Under landing approach path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103.6 77.0 102.1

(point where rotorcraft altitude is 120 meters)

aNoise standards vary by aircraft weight; those listed here are for aircraft around 40,000 pounds. See 14 CFR 35 for further information.

bEffective percieved noise decibels (EPNdB) is an objective measure of noise that gives extra weight to those sound frequencies that are most annoying to

the human ear. See 14 CFR 36 for further information.

cFor a new commercial tiltrotor, not the military V-22.

dFor a DeHavilland DHC-8-1 02.

eFor a Boeing Helicopter BV-234.

SOURCE: Boeing Commercial Airplane Co. et al., Civil Tiltrotor Missions and Applications: A Research Study, prepared for Federal Aviation Administration,

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and Department of Defense, NASA CR 177452 (Seattle, WA: Boeing Commercial Airplane Co.,

July 1987), p. 43.

ful operation will depend on flights to destinations that

currently experience little aircraft noise.26 However,

tiltrotor engineers predict that less noise will reach the

ground from tiltrotors than from similarly sized helicopters or airplanes,27 and that tiltrotor noise could be

significantly reduced through technological and procedural developments.28

Hover and cruise performance have been emphasized at the expense of noise in the designs of most

military and civilian rotorcraft, including the V-22. For

example, increasing the number of rotor blades and

optimizing their shape could potentially reduce noise

and vibrations. However, relatively little Federal or

industry research has been devoted to this effort.

tiltrotors are expected to be quieter in the cruise

mode than most aircraft, and steep flight paths lessen

noise levels on the ground because they decrease

power required for approach, keeping tiltrotors high

for as long as possible over communities, and reducing

time required and ground distance covered during the

descent. However, the minimum-noise flight profile to

convert from cruise to landing has to be validated. Bell

Helicopter Textron and NASA-Langley are collecting

noise data for XV-15 takeoffs and landings, but measurements are not yet available for the larger V-22

tiltrotor.zg (Table 3-3 compares estimated tiltrotor

noise with other aircraft noise levels.)

Aircraft cabin noise levels will benefit from any

effort to reduce rotor noise at the source. Additionally,

passive insulation, active noise suppression techniques, and rotor tip-fuselage separation are marketresponsive design issues for lowering interior noise

and are possible areas for more study.

Cockpit Designs and Procedures—Depending on

the phase of flight, a tiltrotor will operate like a helicopter or like a conventional turboprop airplane. Cur26HowWer, ambient noise from other industrial or transportation sources might be louder than tiltrotoxs (e.g., for vertiports built abve

freeways).

zTBoeing ~mmercia] Airplane Group et al., Phase II Draft Final Report, op. cit., footnote 8, p. 1-2.

~Boeing Commercial Airplane Group et al., Phase 11 Summary, pp. M-36.

291bid., p. 35.
Chapter 3-tiltrotor System Issues ● 4/

rently, helicopter and airplane cockpits are distinctly

different, which is one reason why FAA certifies helicopter pilots separately from airplane pilots. Computerized control systems permit hybrid cockpit designs,

and future airline fleet standardization and pilot career

paths must be considered in developing commercial

tiltrotor cockpits and procedures. Recent investigations

indicate that the V-22 cockpit design, a compromise

between military fixed-wing aircraft and helicopter cockpits, is not appropriate for commercial operations.30

NASA and FAA have conducted limited tiltrotor

landing profile analyses using the V-22 flight simulator

modified to reflect commercial tiltrotor characteristics. Pilots from various organizations who flew

different instrument approach profiles and rated flying

quality and workload3l generally preferred 12-to 15-

degree descents.32 These simulations were limited to

no-wind conditions and constant-speed descents with

deceleration to vertical landing, which pilots found

relatively easy to fly.33 Curved or segmented approaches, flight profiles for short takeoffs and landings, and the effects of winds and turbulence were not

examined. Moreover, all the pilots had fundamental

problems with flight deck controls--each pilot moved

the thrust and/or nacelle control levers the wrong way

at least once during the simulated flights. Further

research actively involving the airline industrt and

experts in human factors34 will be necessary for determining appropriate tiltrotor cockpit layouts and pilot

certification criteria for safe operations.

Steep Angle Approach—The ability to fly optimal

noise reduction profiles discussed above goes hand in

hand with navigation and guidance technology development. For noise reduction, pilot workload, and safety

reasons, tiltrotor operations would optimally use 12-

to 15-degree approach paths. Recent simulator studies

indicate that approach and descent angles up to 25

degrees might be feasible under visual flight conditions. 35 These proposed angles are significantly

steeper than the approximately 3-degree glideslopes

common to all precision instrument approaches used

at public airports in the United States.

FAA is investigating the airspace procedures and

Microwave Landing System (MLS) technology (explained later) for steep flight paths, and NASA continues to study pilot and aircraft performance in

simulators. Aircraft airspeed indicators are inherently

inaccurate at low speeds, so new or different instruments will have to be developed and proven to permit

steep approaches during poor weather conditions.

However, the basic capability for automatic helicopter

approach from altitude under instrument flight conditions was demonstrated by NASA over 20 years ago.36

Infrastructure Issues

Commercial tiltrotor operations from urban vertiport or airport locations will require new ground facilities, ATC equipment, and procedures for terminal

airspace. Most of the necessary technologies and procedures are in various stages of development by FAA

but potential tiltrotor manufacturers and customers

have to be confident that this new infrastructure will

be validated and installed in time to support commercial operations. FAA expects its multiyear Capital Improvement Program (formerly called the National

Airspace System Plan) to modernize the ATC system

to expand the capacity of en route airspace over the

next decade. However, if some jet shuttle passengers

shift to 40-seat tiltrotors, three to five tiltrotor aircraft

would enter the ATC system for each jetliner replaced.

3oIbid., Phase II Summaty, p. 29.

31~e @oper.Ha~r ~]e, a standard aviation indust~ tool for quantifying subjective pilot opinions of aircraft handling qualitiea, was used

in this investigation. See G.E. Cooper and R.P. Harper, ‘The Use of Pilot Rating in the Evaluation of Aircraft Handling Qualities,” NASA TN

D-5153, unpublished report, April 1969.

32Boeing Gmmercial Airplane Group et al., Phase 11 Summary, op. cit., footnote 8, p. 42.

331bid., Phase 11 Draft Final Report, p. 1-2.

34Human factom, a discipline combining behavioral scien~ and engineering, focus= on improving the performance of COmph2X SyStemS Of

people and machines. Designing and operating a system so that it does not induce human error is one critical component of human factors and

limiting the impact of a human error once it occurs is another aspect.

35John F. ward, pr~ident, ward &wiata, personal communi~tion, June x, 1991. However, approach angles Will likely be limited tO k%s

than 25 degrees due to the aircraft’s obstruction of the pilot’s view of the landing zone and aircraft control limitations due to wind gusts that

become a larger fraction of forward speed the steeper the approach angle becomes.

36John F. ward, I~o ~pture the Market, put the Rea] ‘v’ in vTOL,’” J/@~fl&, an American Helicopter society Publication, VO1. 37, No. 1,

January/February 1991.
42 . New Ways: Tiltrotor Aircraft and Magnetically levitated Vehicles

The safety and congestion implications of this new

traffic will have to be assessed if commercial tiltrotor

operations progress to that stage. Moreover, terminal

facilities and airspace procedures for VTOL aircraft

are not current FAA priorities, although they could be

ready within the decade, given sufficient Federal, State,

and local government support.

Terminal Navigation and Guidance Equipment—

MLS, scheduled to become the international standard

for precision instrument approaches beginning in

1998, has the capability to provide both steep-angle

and curved-path descent guidance important for commercial tiltrotor operations. In addition to validating

such flight procedures, MLS equipment must be developed and approved for use at small facilities such as

heliports or vertiports. MLS is currently installed at

two heliports for tests and evaluations, and FAA expects to publish criteria for helicopter instrument approaches for heliports with MLS equipment by early

1992. 37 In MLS, guidance signals spread out like a cone

from the transmitting antenna, and the reception area

narrows as the aircraft approaches for landing. Due to

space limitations, the MLS azimuth antenna (which

sends lateral guidance signals) will likely be located

within a few hundred feet of the landing area at vertiports, possibly prohibiting some desirable flight paths.

Azimuth coverage is not a problem for conventional

airports where the transmitting antenna is positioned

at the opposite end of the runway (possibly 2 miles

away) from the approach path.

Line-of-sight obstructions in urban areas could impede conventional communication and radar surveillance systems. Satellite-based systems and LORAN,38

two technologies used extensively by the military for

long-range communication, navigation, and surveillance, are in limited, but growing, service in civilian

aviation. FAA has programs scheduled over the next

decade to investigate and design low-altitude ATC

applications for these systems.

Airspace Procedures-Developing safe en route and

terminal flight procedures is a well-established task for

FAA However, bringing together new aircraft and

ATC technologies while ensuring pilot and controller

adaptability adds complexity and represents an important additional issue for FAA The agency modifying

existing rotorcraft terminal instrument procedures

(TERPS) to allow helicopters and future tiltrotors to

use flight paths made possible by new avionics. Commercial tiltrotors might require more complex procedures (e.g., steeper glideslopes) than those allowed by

generic rotorcraft TERPS to conduct flights at environmentally sensitive vertiports. tiltrotor proponents

fear that a conservative approach by FAA to developing standards for these procedures and airspace could

delay or stymie industry support for commercial tiltrotors. 39 Since a suitably equipped tiltrotor is not currently available, FAA plans to use flight simulators to

develop tiltrotor TERPS, but will not certify the

TERPS until they are safely demonstrated with actual

aircraft.

Federal Programs for Civil tiltrotor Development

Rotorcraft-related programs in FAA, NASA and

DOD help civil tiltrotor development, as do generic

aviation R&D in lightweight structures and materials,

engine performance, simulations, human factors, and

aircraft and ATC systems. The Federal Government

has spent almost $27 million over the past 5 years for

civilian or dual-use tiltrotor technology programs (see

table 3-4).

National Aeronautics and Space Administration—

NASA, together with DOD and industry, has investigated and developed tiltrotor technology since the

1950s. The XV-15 program was a successful proof-ofconcept demonstration that lead to the V-22 program.

Two XV-15 aircraft are currently being used by NASA

and Bell Helicopters for civil noise and terminal airspace procedures flight testing.

37Robert Chennq, Aviation National Standards Field Office, Federal Aviation Administration, personal eommunieation, JUIY ~, 1991.

38LORAN is a low.frequenq ~adi~ navi~ati~n s~~tem, owrated by the mast Guard, that transmits useful signa]s Up to 1,000 miles away.

Bulky and complex LORAN reeeivers were designed originally for marine operations, but low-cost/low-weight signal processors now make

LORAN measurements practical for aviation.

39p.R. Thompson, Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, OTA workshop discussion, Apr. 18,1991.
Chapter 3-Tiltrotor System Issues ● 43

Table 3-4-NASA and FAA Budgets for tiltrotor and Other Vertical Flight Technology Programs

FY FY FY FY FY

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 5-year total

(real year dollars in millions)

NASA:

tiltrotor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 3.8 5.0 5.0 5.2 22.5

Rotorcraft, including tiltrotor. . 22.0 23.9 21.7 24.3 25.3 117.2

Total aeronautics . . . . . . . . . . 332.9 398.2 442.6 512.0 591.2 2,276.9

FAA:

tiltrotora. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.9 1.0 0.7 0.4 0.4 4.5

Vertical flight RE&Db. . . . . . . . 2.8 4.2 4.2 4.3 5.2 20.6

Total FAA RE&Dc . . . . . . . . . . 173.8 162.3 212.7 244.6 262.0 1,055.4

Total for civil tiltrotor . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 4.8 5.7 5.4 5.6 26.9

Total for rotorcraft/vertical

flight technology . . . . . . . . . . . 24.8 28.1 25.9 24.7 25.7 129.2

a

Inc[udes civil tiltrotor studies, vertiport planning, and V-22 certification expenditures.

bDoes not include vertiport planning and certification expenditures.

c

lncludes funding for facilities.

KEY: NASA= National Aeronautics and Space Administration; FAA = Federal Aviation Administration; FY = fiscal year; RE&D = research, engineering, and

development.

SOURCE: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1991; Federal Aviation Administration, 1991; and American Association for the Advancement of

Science, 1990.

Specifically for tiltrotor, NASA research focuses on

improving the performance of the vehicle and integrating tiltrotors into the civil aviation system.40 Among

the current (and planned) NASA investigations are:

ways to limit the adverse forces on the wings from

hover downwash; reducing rotor noise and vibrations

through new designs, materials, and controls; developing simulation models; studying unique tiltrotor cockpit automation and human factors issues; and

exploring higher speed tiltrotor. configurations. “Additionally, NASA conducts long-range, generic R&D in

aeronautics technology, such as low-weight materials

and advanced propulsion technologies, that could have

a direct effect on civil tiltrotor.Al NASA spends $25

million annually for rotorcraft-related R&D, with

about one-fifth of that specifically for tiltrotor. (See

table 3-4 again.)

Federal Aviation Administration—FAA, as the

Federal agency responsible for ensuring civil aviation

safety and promoting air commerce, has been involved

in vertical flight certification and infrastructure development since the creation of a civil rotorcraft industry

following World War II. In 1985 FAA proposed a joint

study with DOD and NASA to investigate the civil

potential of tiltrotors and capitalize on the ongoing

military technology development. In 1988 FAA established the Civil tiltrotor Initiative to ease nonmilitary

implementation of tiltrotors should demand for such

service materialize. Under this program, FAA has accelerated the tiltrotor certification process by gathering early engineering and test data from the military

V-22 test program and developed aircraft and operational certification criteria. FAA estimates that the V-22

could be certified for demonstration purposes by 1995

and a civil design could be approved by 1998, saving 5

to 8 years over a sequential certification process.42

Reflecting the level of civil rotorcraft use in the

United States, FAA rotorcraft R&D programs are

relatively small (see table 3-4). The $4-million average

annual rotorcraft R&D expenditure over the past 5

@Robert Rosen, deputy associate administrator for Aeronautics, Exploration, and Technology, National Aeronautics and Space

Administration, testimony at hearings, in U.S. Congress, House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Subcommittee on Transportation

Aviation and Materials, Civil TihrotorAppZicationsR esearch (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, July 17, 1990), p. 141.

411bid., pp. 141-14s.

42u.s. Depafiment of Transpoflation, Federal Aviation Administration, Rotorcrafi ~~t~ plan (Washington, DC: November 1990); and

Michael Zywokarte, NYM~ Inc., personal communication, July 24,1991.
 44. New Ways: Tiltrotor Aircraft and Magnetically Levitated vehicles

years was 2 percent of FAA’s total R&D budget. FAA

rotorcraft R&D focuses on infrastructure development and aircraft safety, such as terminal instrument

procedures, aircraft simulation, ATC procedures, and

communication, navigation, and surveillance systems.

Specifically for tiltrotor, R&D funding goes to initial

planning for a civil demonstration program and coordination with NASA tiltrotor technology R&D efforts.

Additionally, FAA has awarded just under $3 million

in Airport Improvement Program Grants for 17 vertiport planning and feasibility studies and $600,000 has

been funded through the end of fiscal year 1991 to

collect precertification data from the V-22 and to develop terminal airspace procedures.43

Market and Economic Evaluation

The market for commercial tiltrotor aircraft and

service is speculative, given that neither the vehicle nor

the required infrastructure exists. Since a tiltrotor will

cost more per seat to purchase and operate than a

similarly sized or larger conventional airplane, other

factors must be important if commercial tiltrotor service is to be economical. The basis for commercial

tiltrotor market potential is avoiding, and possibly

relieving, air and ground congestion. There might be

national competitiveness and technical readiness

benefits stemming from U.S. tiltrotor technology and

industrial base development, although such benefits

are not analyzed in this report.

The value of commercial tiltrotor passenger or

freight service relative to other air travel options lies

mainly in two areas: 1) improving door-to-door trip

times for passengers (or cargo) by circumventing

ground and air congestion, and 2) expanding the capacity and reducing the runway congestion at the busiest

airports by permitting some short-haul traffic (trips of

less than 500 miles) to shift to tiltrotors, thus freeing

runway space for larger aircraft. Whether these benefits are sufficient for industry to produce commercial

tiltrotors and for airlines to operate them is unclear.

Public data are sparse on door-to-door travel and

passenger perceptions of ground access costs and value

of time, making demand projections difficult. Another

uncertainty is the willingness of hub feed commuter

airlines, most of which are affiliated with major air

carriers, to switch to tiltrotors without new Federal

and local government policies. Moreover, how much

traffic could be diverted from generally lower cost

automobile trips and other nonair travel modes or

otherwise be generated by the time-saving potential of

tiltrotor is not well understood. Hence, only airline

traffic between urban areas is considered as the initial

market base for commercial tiltrotors.Q’l

Crucial to commercial tiltrotor service are safe and

reliable aircraft, a suitable infrastructure, and willing

airline operators. To focus on the markets and economics of commercial tiltrotors, OTA has assumed

that the infrastructure could be in place and other

possible institutional hurdles could be overcome. (Institutional factors that could impede a commercial

tiltrotor system are discussed in the next section.)

Much of the background data on tiltrotor economics

and markets used in this section comes from the

NASA/FAA Phase 11 study. According to that study, if

a market-responsive tiltrotor and infrastructure were

available today, intercity passenger service would be

viable in certain markets. However, further analysis is

needed to determine whether there is enough demand

to justify producing commercial tiltrotors in the next

decade. Moreover, a better understanding is needed

about the increases in capacity and the degree of congestion relief to be realized through commercial tiltrotor operations and about what public policy support,

if any, might be necessary. The primary reason FAA is

studying tiltrotor technology is to reduce air traffic

delays.45

Tiltrotor Economics

tiltrotors will not offer improved cost airspeed,

trip frequency, or comfort over existing aircraft serving urban airports; their value depends on overcoming

runway and road congestion.46 For intercity service, a

4qJoseph M. Del Ba~o, ~ecutive director for system Development, Federal Aviation Administration, personal communication, June 10,1991.

44George Unger, National Aeronauti~ and Space Administration, OTA workshop discussion, Apr. 18,1991.

45Michae1 zywo~rte, NYh@ Inc., personal communication, July 2,1991.

46Studi= indi~te that tiltrotom might offer ~tter and more economi=l servi~ in regions where transportation is difficult, such as Alaska

and the Caribbean according to Ted Lane, Thomas/Lane & Associate, personal communication, June 28, 1991.
Chapter 3-tiltrotor System Issues ● 4.5

tiltrotor system design would use a distributed network

of terminals (as opposed to the more centralized network of existing hub airports) that could allow shorter

and quicker ground trips for air travelers. Other actions to reduce current and projected transportation

problems, especially airport congestion, might dilute

many of the advantages cited for commercial tiltrotor.

For example, a downturn in the economy, use of larger

aircraft, or better management of aviation infrastructure might lessen the pressure on the busiest airports.

Moreover, the accuracy of FAA airport congestion

forecasts is open to question—projections are based

on limited data and do not account for possible

changes in air carrier operating practices if the delay

costs become too burdensome (see forecasting section

in chapter 2).

However, if airport congestion grows over the next

decade, there will be few acceptable public options to

ameliorate it. Adding new airport capacity will be difficult-communities oppose most plans for new runways and airports, and advanced technologies to

squeeze more flights into airports will be slow to come

online and will produce marginal improvements at

best.47 Demand management mechanisms, such as

runway differential pricing, generate heated protests

from users and create issues of social and economic

equity that are hard to resolve.48

Costs To Build and Operate Commercial tiltrotors

For a given level of technology, the cost to build and

operate an aircraft depends on its payload capacity and

design range. Selected commercial tiltrotor designs

from 8 to 75 seats with ranges up to 600 miles were

considered in the earlier Phase I study.@ Cost data for

commuter airline turboprop airplanes were used to

gauge commercial tiltrotor economic estimates, since

the size, en route performance, and the nature of airline operations for tiltrotors are assumed to be similar

to those for turboprops. The following assumptions

were made in the Phase II study:

● Military V-22 production and operating costs are

not analogous to commercial tiltrotor costs, owing

●

●

●

to differences in mission requirements, materials, military procurement rules, and production

rates.

Only a small percentage of tiltrotor flight time

will be in the helicopter mode (e.g., vertical flight

would account for 2 percent of a 200-mile trip).

This is important because maintenance and fuel

costs climb with increased use of vertical flight.

Generic turboprop and jet aircraft cost data, derived from actual airline and manufacturer figures, are used to estimate and compare tiltrotor

economics.

A commercial tiltrotor would cost 40 to 45 percent more to build than would a turboprop with

equivalent size, range, and overall quality.

A 39-seat tiltrotor was found to be a good compromise size for the flight frequency and passenger volumes required for the commercial markets studied by

the Phase II team. Such an aircraft is similar in size to

the V-22 Osprey and might benefit from some common

technology and components. However, changes in

market factors and closer analysis of potential demand

might indicate a different optimal tiltrotor configuration.

The Phase II study team analyzed the costs to build,

maintain, and fly a commercial tiltrotor. Some of the

findings are provided in table 3-5, which compares

economic figures for tiltrotor, turboprop, and jetliner

aircraft. For flights longer than around 100 miles, tiltrotors would be more expensive than equivalent turboprop for an airline to operate. However, tiltrotors

flying from vertiports could offer significant savings in

time and ground transportation costs for passengers

who normally travel through major airports, possibly

making tiltrotors competitive in certain markets.

If Ishida tiltwings or other high-speed VTOL aircraft go into production, their effect on the airspace

system and the demand for commercial tiltrotor service will have to be factored into tiltrotor forecasts.

Detailed cost data are not yet publicly available, but

‘$Tu.s. tingr=, office of Technology Assessment, Delivm”ng the Gooak Public Works Technologies, Managernentj and Financing,

OTA-SET-477 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1991), p. 84.

481 bid., p. 85.

49tiltrotor and conventional turboprop aircraft with 8,19,31,39,52, and 75 seats were analyzed in the Phase I study.
46 ● New Ways: tiltrotor Aircraft and Magnetically Levitated Vehicles

Photo credit: Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc.

Although similar in size to the V-22, a 39-seat commercial

tiltrotor (shown in this artist’s conception) would incorporate different design features, such as a new fuselage.

the Ishida tiltwing aircraft, designed primarily for the

corporate transport market, might be competitive with

commercial tiltrotors on certain commercial routes.

Although a 14-seat tiltwing will likely have higher

seat-mile Costs50 than a 39-seat tiltrotor, it is designed

to fly at least as fast and as far, use smaller landing areas,

and perhaps be more economical for high-frequency

service on routes with too few passengers for 39-seat

tiltrotors.

tiltrotor Service Scenarios

The Phase 11 team analyzed various types of service

for civil tiltrotors and determined that routes of 100 to

500 miles with high levels of ground and/or air congestion at one or both ends offered the greatest potential

for commercial tiltrotors. The prime markets are pointto-point trips between urban areas, including city

center to city center, and commuter connections to

congested hub airports. Service to small cities or uncontested hubs using 40-seat tiltrotors is not considered economically viable.

Point-to-Point Service Between Urban Areas

Travel corridors characterized by strong business

travel, existing air shuttle service, and difficult ground

access to major airports are leading candidates for

point-to-point tiltrotor service. U.S. air travel routes

with these attributes include Washington-New YorkBoston, Dallas-Houston, and Los Angeles-San Francisco.

On these routes, tiltrotors would compete with

larger jetliners averaging 130 seats per aircraft.51 The

value of reduced time and access costs for shorter

ground trips to and from strategically located vertiports is especially critical for penetrating these airline

markets, since the cost per seat for the air portion of

the trip would be significantly higher for the tiltrotor

than for a jetliner (see table 3-5 again).52Pan Am and

Trump shuttles carry approximately 3.8 million passengers per year on New York-Washington and New

York-Boston routes, or about three-quarters of the air

travelers in these markets.

The Phase 11 team analyzed a hypothetical commercial tiltrotor system for the NEC and devised schedules, computed travel times, identified potential

locations for vertiports, and estimated the number of

passengers diverted from conventional airplanes and

the number of additional flights using the airspace. The

study team assumed that shorter trip times and resulting lower ground access costs would compensate for

the higher operating costs and consequent ticket price

for tiltrotorservice and that passengers would consider

freed-wing and tiltrotor service economically equivalent: On this basis, using the Boeing Market Share

Model,s3 the team calculated passenger demand based

on service frequency and trip time.54 Flight schedules

and total aircraft inventory needs (based on fuel capacity, turnaround times, and other operating requirements) were estimated. Under these assumptions, the

study found that commercial tiltrotors would capture

94 percent of the intra-Northeast Corridor market.

 things being aircraft are more economical per seat-mile than smaller aircraft. are projected to 

to 20 pereent more to operate than an equivalent turboprop. This is similar to tiltrotor cost estimates.

51 Boeing Group et al., Phase Draft Final Report, op. cit., footnote 8, p. 3-92.

 depend, in part, on the percentage of seats that 

 simulation for fleet planning developed by Boeing 

 is to Share both cost and time are 
Chapter 3—tiltrotor System Issues ● 47

Table 3-5-Comparative Economic Data for Commercial tiltrotors Operating in the

Northeast Corridor

Operating costss in 1989 dollars for 230-mile trip

($ per seat-mile)

tiltrotor Turboprop B737-300

Categories (39-seats) (39-seats) (128-seats)

Aircraft capital Costsb

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.067 0.054 0.038

Maintenance costs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.048 0.036 0.014

Fuel Costsc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.019 0.011 0.011

Total aircraft costsd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.203 0.172 0.122

Travel timese for 230-mile trip

(hours: minutes)

Ground travel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0:36 1 :34 1 :34

Airport terminal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0:30 0:45 0:45

Onboard aircraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0:50 1 :06 0:54

Total trip time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 :56 3:25 3:13

Ground and air travel costs for 230-mile trip

(per passenger)

Taxi faref . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $12.80 $33.10 $33.10

Flight Costsg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.82 61.02 43.09

Total travel costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84.62 94.12 76.19

aAssumes passengers occupy 65 percent of seats.

bDepreciation, financing, and insurance costs.

cAt $0.60 per gallon.

dTotal costs for each aircraft type, which include flight crew, passenger service, landing fee, and ground handling

expenses, reflect commuter airline wage scales and service levels, which are generally less than those for major

airlines.

eAssumes Northeast Corridor ground travel and airport conditions; turboprop and jetliner ground and airport terminal

times are for major airports.

fTypical trips to and from Northeast Corridor airports used for turboprop and jetliner calculations; trips to and from

well-situated vertiports used for tiltrotor taxi fare. gBreakeven costs to airline with 65 percent of passenger seats occupied; ultimate ticket price could vary considerably.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991, based on Boeing Commercial Airplane Group et al., Civil Tiltrotor

Missions and Applications Phase II: The Commercial Passenger Market, Draft Final Report, prepared for

National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Federal Aviation Administration, NASA CR 177576

(Seattle, WA: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, February 1991).

While the Phase II NEC analysis is an important aircraft. 56 Jetliners, the dominant mode, cost about

step for understanding tiltrotor effects on ATC and one-third less per seat to operate than commuters

potential passenger demand, further scrutiny using along NEC routes.57 The ground access and flight

representative market conditions is needed to provide costs58 for a tiltrotor passenger would be 11 percent

credible support for industry or public policy decisions

regarding commercial tiltrotors. The Phase II study

compared tiltrotors with turboprop aircraft only and

did not include the monetary value of the time saved

by tiltrotor passengers in its demand analysis.55 It is

reasonable that taxi fares and airline ticket costs could

be equivalent for these two types of aircraft. However,

only 10 to 15 percent of airline passengers who travel

between the major NEC airports do so in commuter

higher than if the same journey were taken via major

airports served by jetliners (see table 3-5 again). A

tiltrotor network would still offer significant savings

in total trip time relative to jet service, but it is unclear

what size passenger market tiltrotors would attract.

The jet shuttle market might be difficult to penetrate,

but tiltrotors could supplement shuttle flights with

new services and absorb extra traffic, if airport congestion becomes a constraint.

Ssfitimating the value of time is admittedly difficult.

5GoTA ~lculations based on OficiaZAirZine Guiuk data for April 1991.

57From phase II data ~~mpanng B737-’300,” and generic 39+eat turboprop over a z30-mile distance in revenue passenger SetViCtL

58Total cost to the airline to provide the seat, not the ticket price paid by the passenger.
48 . New Ways: Tiltrotor Aircraft and Magnetically Levitated Vehicles

Revised tiltrotor demand estimates could lead to

different conclusions regarding optimal aircraft size

and vertiport locations. FAA is conducting independent economic and market evaluations using lower

overall market projections and has a small study under

way comparing commercial tiltrotors with the Pan Am

and Trump shuttles, but the results are not yet publicly

available. 59

Replacing Commuter Airplanes

as Airport Hub Feeders

Air service from small cities to congested or slotconstrained hub airports is another potential market

for commercial tiltrotors. Commuter turboprop airplanes provide most of this feeder service, and replacing some of them with similarly sized tiltrotors could

free up valuable landing slots for more productive,

long-haul aircraft while still providing vital air connections for small communities. The potential passenger

capacity gains for NEC airports are substantial. At

Boston, for example, commuter airlines use 30 percent

of the landing slots but carry only 5 percent of the

airport’s passengers.60 Since tiltrotors cost more to

operate and offer no significant time savings over commuter turboprop airplanes if both fly from conventional airports, the economic viability of tiltrotors in

this market depends on balancing higher tiltrotor costs

with the increased revenues and benefits from runway

slots that could be used by more people in larger

aircraft. Presently, there is no public policy encouraging efficient use of runway slots or enabling airlines to

“capture” the benefits of congestion relief.

Maintaining (and increasing) market share is important to airlines. Established air carriers and their

commuter airline partners have little incentive to free

up runway slots if other airlines get to use them. With

the exception of four airports—Chicago O’Hare, New

York Kennedy, New York LaGuardia, and Washington National—landing and takeoff slots are first

come/first serve for any aircraft operator. At the four

“slot-controlled” airports, landing and takeoff quotas

have been established by FAA for three user classes—

air carriers, commuters, and general aviation. Federal

regulations6l prohibit the transfer of slots between

user classes (e.g., an air carrier cannot use a commuter

slot). Moreover, air carriers would not always be able

to take advantage of a commuter slot even if one

opened up, since at many airports turboprop aircraft

use runways too short for jetliners.62

Two-thirds of airline delays occur during bad

weather,63 when short runways are usually not used.

With current technology and procedures, most airports can safely operate one or two runways only, when

atmospheric conditions, such as low clouds, impair

pilot and tower controller visibility. This reduces by 50

percent or more the number of aircraft that can takeoff

and land relative to clear-weather capacity. Under

these circumstances, commuters, private aircraft, and

jetliners alike must use the same runways, further complicating the already congested traffic flow. tiltrotor

service could clearly increase capacity at some busy

airports, such as New York’s LaGuardia, that do not

have separate runways available for commuter turboprop.

The Phase II study investigated the economics of

replacing some hub feed commuter flights to NEC

airports with tiltrotor service and calculated the number of slots freed and the required cross-subsidy per

slot to cover the tiltrotor’s higher costs. The methodology for this analysis was to calculate the cost difference to provide the same number of seats annually by

39-seat tiltrotors and 31-seat turboprops.64 The slot

revenue required to support tiltrotor service based on

these calculations65 ranged from over $100 per day per

59Mi~hael Zywokarte, NY~ Inc., personal communication, Ju$ 22,1991.

60Massachu5ettS Port Authority, “MassPort’s Program for Airport Capacity Efficiency,” unpublished report, Dec. 11,1987.

6114 CFR %3, Subpart K.

62~e Federal Aviation Administration has proposed amending slot ~les to permit regional @ (as large as 11O seats) to use a limited nUmber

of commuter turboprop slots at Chicago O’Hare. See 56 Federal Regi.ster 21404 (May 8, 1991) for further details.

63UOS0 Depafiment of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, ~W@9~ Aviafi~n $LWM capaci~ Plan, DOT/FAA/SC-90-l

(Washington, DC: September 1990), p. 1-11.

64The 31-s=t generic turboprop in the phase II database approfimat= the 30-seat overall average for the Northeast Corridor markets

anal ed.

6 r~um= that tiltrotor purchase prim is 50 ~rwnt higher than an equivalent turboprop, or $300,000 per seat, and that tiltrotors would

replace all turboprops flying the busiest (top 50 percent) routes to the hub airport.
Chapter 3-Tiltrotor System Issues ● 49

runway slot for Washington, DC, to virtually nothing

for Philadelphia.66

A limitation of this Phase II analysis is that it does

not address the economics of replacing each turboprop

flight with a tiltrotor. For example, in the Boston

commuter market, where average aircraft size is 24

seats, small communities would lose 38 percent of their

flights to Logan Airport under the equivalent seat

scenario. For Boston, the cross-subsidy would have to

beat least seven times higher than the figures published in the Phase II report if equal frequency service is

to be provided by 39-seat tiltrotors.GT Using tiltrotors

closer to the size of the aircraft that they replace would

be somewhat better economically if equivalent schedules are to be maintained. For the Washington, DC,

market, where commuter flights average 39 seats, it

would cost $470 extra to replace a turboprop round

trip with tiltrotor service (thereby freeing one slot).68

(The landing fee for a 150-seat aircraft at Washington

National Airport is about one-third69 this amount.)

Domestic and Worldwide Potential Market

Three-quarters of all scheduled airline flights

worldwide are for travel less than 500 miles, making

them potential candidates for replacement by tiltrotors. Using Official Airline Guide schedules and Boeing Commercial Airplane Co. forecast data, the Phase

II study predicted potential demand for tiltrotor aircraft by examining the traffic characteristics of the

busiest routes, considering only those routes where

tiltrotor economics could be favorable. City pairs with

lower density traffic, less ground congestion, or routes

longer than 300 miles were de-emphasized, and small

markets, hub feeder flights, and airlines offering few

flights per week were excluded. Other economic assumptions used in the NEC analysis were applied in

the global market assessment. The Phase 11 study identified 220 candidate city pairs that could use over 2,600

commercial 40-seat tiltrotors by the end of the decade

if a suitable infrastructure were in place (see table 3-6).

Approximately one-half of this potential demand lies

outside the United States. Further analysis is necessary

to account for direct economic competition between

jetliners and tiltrotors, since only turboprops were the

reference base. Jets provide about 45 percent of the

passenger capacity for trips under 500 miles.

For the year 2000, Ishida projects a market for about

750 high-speed VTOL aircraft, and Eurofar sees demand for 30-seat commercial tiltrotors,TO with both

groups anticipating a similar 50-50 split between the

United States and the rest of the world in demand for

their high-speed VTOL aircraft.7l These estimates indicate that U.S. market conditions (including infrastructure policy decisions) could determine tiltrotor

(and other high-speed VTOL) characteristics. If the

magnitude of worldwide commercial tiltrotor demand

Table 3-6—Market Potential for 40-Seat Commercial

tiltrotor in Year 2000

Region City pairs Number of aircraft

North Americaa. . . . . . . . . . . . 117 1,268

Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 615

Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 501

Oceania b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 239

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 2,623

aSeven areas: I ) Northeast Corridor; 2) Southeast, based in Atlanta;

3) Midwest, based in Chicago; 4) SoUth-central, based in Dallas-Fort

Worth; 5) Southwest, centered in San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego,

and Phoenix; 6) Northwest, based in Seattle; and 7) Hawaiian Islands.

bWestern pacific Rim countries, excluding Japan.

SOURCE: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group et al., Civi/ 7i/trotor Missions

and Applications Phase //: The Commercial Passenger Market,

Summary, prepared for National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Federal Aviation Administration, NASACR 177576

(Seattle, WA: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, February

1991).

66Tiltrotom compare so favorab] with turboprop in the Philadelphia market beeause the average trip distance is Small, around lx mil~.

Tiltrotom beeome more eeonomiea than conventional airplanes for trip distances under 100 miles /’ or so. However, helieoptem perform better

than tiltrotors if distances are redueed further.

GTThis estimate is based on the cost difference, accounting for different passenger load factors, between flying 3%seat tihrotors and 31-Wt

turboprops on the Boston routes. Data source is the Phase 11 report. The cost difference would be substantially greater between 39-seat tiltrotom

and the 24-seat average aircraft actually flown in the Boston market.

68The phase 11 study, by using the 31.seat turboprop as the referenw base for the Washington, DC, market analysis, underestimates the

tiltrotor cost difference, since the smal[er aircraft would be more expensive to use on Washington, DC, routes than would 39-seaturboprops.

@The landing fee for air carnem at Washington National is $1.04 per 1,000 pounds of landing weight, or around $160 for a B-727.

70We a~ume that all these markets overlap, and the figures are therefore not additive.

71 Kocurek, op. cit., fmtnote 22; and Joseph M. Del Ba~~, executive director for system’ D~elopment, Federal Aviation Administration,

testimony at hearings, in House Gmmittee on Science, Space, and Technology, op. cit., footnote 40, p. 157.
50 . New Ways: tiltrotor Aircraft and Magnetically Levitated Vehicles

holds true, the export value of U.S.-manufactured tiltrotors could exceed $15 billion in 2000.72

Institutional Framework

Congressional and other public interest in tiltrotors

has focused primarily on the vehicle technology and its

military role. Whether potential benefits of proposed

tiltrotor service, such as congestion relief, are realized

will depend on the institutional framework and the air

and ground infrastructure within which tiltrotor must

be developed and operated. Marketing skills and political and industrial coalitions will be essential for

getting the technology out of the workshop. A host of

challenges, many of them nontechnical, face future

tiltrotor intercity systems, including: community acceptance of facilities and operations; properly situated

terminals with adequate ground connections; suitable

ATC equipment and procedures; people and organizations willing and able to plan, design, build, operate,

maintain, and manage the system; a regulatory framework to ensure that the system is developed and run in

a safe, environmentally acceptable, and economically

fair manner; and available financing to support the

system (see table 3-7).

tiltrotor Safety Oversight

FAA which has regulatory authority for all aspects

of civil aviation safety, would be responsible for certifying tiltrotor vehicles, operations, procedures, personnel, and landing facilities. Because it has worked

closely with DOD to collect data from the V-22 flight

test program, FAA is well positioned to provide safety

certification services if industry proceeds with a civil

tiltrotor program. FAA’s Rotorcraft Directorate in

Fort Worth, Texas, has developed airworthiness standards73 that apply to other powered-lift vehicles as well.

FAA methodology for developing helicopter en route

and terminal airspace procedures is applicable to tiltrotor, and some existing helicopter routes might be

suitable for tiltrotors. A vertiport design guide to aid

local planners has recently been released by FAA74 If

put into common carrier service, tiltrotors will be subject to the same or equivalent operating regulations as

larger airliners.75

While additional flight testing and analyses are

needed to establish specific requirements for tiltrotors

(e.g., pilot training, cockpit instrumentation, maintenance standards), neither the tiltrotor design nor

FAA's regulatory framework should significantly impede the certification of a civil tiltrotor. However,

some tiltrotor operations and procedures cannot be

certified until appropriate ATC technologies are developed and approved and actual flight test aircraft are

available.

Environmental Issues and Community

Acceptance

The feasibility of establishing vertiports depends on

the balance of environmental concerns and perceptions, the state of local transportation systems, and the

potential for economic development. Aircraft noise is

a serious problem for airport operators and airlines,

and is the leading environmental issue for tiltrotor.

Community groups fighting to restrict airport operations because of noise concerns have limited airport

development across the country. Interviews conducted

with public officials in 13 U.S. cities indicated that

vertiports could be located and tiltrotors operated in

their urban areas if noise levels are as low as projected.76 New public heliports have opened in recent

years or are being built in Indianapolis, Manhattan,

Portland (Oregon), and Dallas,77 but helicopter operations are not welcome in most communities, and

few scheduled helicopter airlines have ever been profitable (see box 3-C).

While the intensity of sounds can be measured precisely, determining what constitutes objectionable

72&~uming a $300,000 per-seat purchase price.

73u.s. Depafiment of TransWrtation, Federal Aviation Administration, “Interim Airworthiness Criteria: powered-Lift Transport (htf3gO~

Aircraft,” unpublished report, July 198S.

74u.s. Depafiment of Transpofiation, Federal Aviation Administration, v~ipo~ ~sign, AdviSo~ Circu]ar 150/5390-3 (Washington, DC:

May 31, 1991).

7514 CFR 121 or Comparable regulations would apply if tiltrotors have more than 30 passenger-seats.

76Robe~ L. Neir, market researCh manager, Boeing commercial A@]ane Group, personal communication, Feb. 27, 1%)1.

77zPo~~e, op. cit., footnote 42.
Chapter 3—Tiltrotor System Issues ● 51

Table 3-7—tiltrotor System Issues

Component Issues Comments

. . . . . -- . . . .

tiltrotor aircraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-22 program status; need for a civil

demonstration program; commercial

market size.

Vertiport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Federal airport capital grant policy for

vertiports is unclear; sites that are

acceptable to communities and are

operationally suitable depend in part

on new technologies and flight procedures .

ATC system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appropriate technology, procedures, and

manpower needed to gain benefits of

tiltrotor flight capabilities. Large increase in the number of daily en route

flights possible.

Regulatory oversight . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cockpit design and pilot training; noise

standards for tiltrotor and vertiports.

Potential operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Major airlines have not embraced tiltrotor.

Are potential tiltrotor system benefits

realizable for an existing or entrepreneur airline?

Local communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Noise, safety of overflights, and potential

increases in surface traffic are key

community concerns.

Passengers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Would potential passengers recognize

cost and service benefits of tiltrotors?

Financiers and investors . . . . . . . . . What assurances are needed for nonFederal investors in tiltrotor technology and what is the Federal role?

Administration has attempted to end me V-22 in fiscal

years 1990 and 1991; civil demonstration program

proposed in the NASA/FAA Phase II study.

Waterfront, industrial, underused small airports, and

nonurban interstate sites appear plausible; residential

and central business district locations doubtful; multiple-use facilities could help limit development costs

for vertiport portion.

Rotorcraft have never been well integrated into the

airspace system; no public heliport in the United

States now has precision instrument landing capabilitiesessential for scheduled passenger operations.

En route operations by tiltrotors are no different than

those by conventional aircraft, and FAA has programs

under way to enhance the capabilities of en route

airspace.

V-22 flight test data are being analyzed by FAA; airworthiness criteria for tiltrotor-type aircraft are published (in interim form); vertiport planning guidelines

are available; airspace procedures are being studied

in simulators.

Lack of aircraft and infrastructure has dampened airline

interest; airlines will not voluntarily free up airport

capacity for competitors; scheduled passenger helicopter service, in some respects comparable to

tiltrotor, is virtually nonexistent in the United States.

With appropriate airspace procedures, vertiports and

their operations could be isolated from residential

areas; some planning analyses are under way (e.g.,

FAA vertiport studies).

Safety and service levels at least comparable to large

commuter operations required; total direct ground

and air costs to passengers could be less than current

air options in certain markets. How do travelers value

ground access time and cost?

Public and private investment in the United States limited

primarily to planning and design studies to date; new

heliports are being designed to vertiport standards; no

commitment to develop commercial tiltrotor in the

United States.

KEY: NASA = National Aeronautics and Space Administration; FAA= Federal Aviation Administration; ATC = air traffic control.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991.

noise is more subjective. FAA sets noise standards for after December 31, 2000.80 Rotorcraft are not presaircraft designs, commonly referred to as Stage 1, 2, ently covered by these “stage” rules, but industry proand 3 rules,Tg and for airport planning.Tg While differ- ponents claim a civil tiltrotor would be able to meet

enees in local conditions and jurisdiction: factors Stage 3 requirements.

have made establishing a more definitive Federal

standard for airport noise difficult, Stage 1 aircraft are Although civil tiltrotors might be less noisy on comalready banned, and all Stage 2 aircraft are prohibited mercial flight paths than helicopters and most fiied7814 cm 36.

7914 cm 150.

go Con~e,ssional Record, Oct. 16,1990, p. 12535.
52 ● New Ways: Tiltrotor Aircraft and Magnetically Levitated Vehicles

Box 3-C-Current Helicopter System Issues

Since helicopters and tiltrotors perform comparably at or near landing facilities, a look at helicopter

airline operations might illuminate potential tiltrotor system obstacles. A great many helicopters, trained

pilots, and public and private heliports exist in the United States, and helicopters are used extensively in

situations where no other aircraft could operate--emergency medical services, police operations, search and

rescue missions, and offshore oil rig support, to name a few. Scheduled helicopter service from Chicago, New

York, and Los Angeles airports was subsidized by the Federal Government from 1954 through 1966, and each

of the helicopter airlines operating during those years went out of business by the late 1970s. During the past

decade, a few helicopter airlines established interline agreements with major airlines, which helped defray the

cost of these connecting flights for their passengers. None of these airlines is currently operating. 1 Although

operating costs are much higher than those of airplanes, economics alone has not kept helicopter passenger

service on the ground.

Lack of a “helicopter friendly” infrastructure is the main complaint of rotorcraft operators. Few public

heliports exist, and none are equipped with precision landing guidance systems that are essential for allweather scheduled operations. When helicopters use conventional airports, air traffic controllers usually

direct them along airplane flight paths (which are fatal to any profit margin the helicopter had), even though

helicopter-specific routes are often available. Air traffic controllers are inherently conservative and are most

secure with airplane procedures. Moreover, during busy periods, controllers may be able to monitor only

fried-wing routes safely.z

Noise, on the ground and in the cabin, has weakened public acceptance of helicopter service. However,

some noise problems are due to flight paths dictated by air traffic control (ATC), and current technological

know-how could reduce noise (interior and exterior) and vibrations and improve ATC capabilities. rotorcraft

manufacturers and the Federal Aviation Administration, with most of its resources and expertise devoted to

fixed-wing aircraft, have not strongly promoted passenger helicopter service.

IHUb~-, one of the f~ ~cheduIed helicopter wrviees in the United SW3$, recently we~~ Out of busin~”

230C1 HiC~, dir~t~r for safe~, Technology, and Training, National&Traffic ~ntro]kxs _CkltiOn, pe~onal ~m~uni@i~ni

Mar. 22,1991.

wing aircraft, they may not be quiet enough to satisfy copter flights. Technically, helicopters could be dethose communities where vertiports are most likely to

be located to capture the largest possible market share.

FAA actions to reroute aircraft over New Jersey

caused an uproar from communities that previously

had few overflights, even though average sound intensity from these flights was less than that from normal

conversational tones. Moreover, most communities

that might accept tiltrotor vertiports would turn them

down if louder helicopter operations were permitted.gl On the other hand, vertiport operators would

probably welcome the additional revenue from helisigned and operated to be less noisy than is common

now. Presently, there are no Federal noise standards

specifically for heliports or vertiports. Airport noise

compatibility planning guidelines (14 CFR 150) are

now used for heliports.gz

The environmental impact of building (as opposed

to operating) a vertiport should be relatively minor,

especially compared with airport and other transportation infrastructure construction, owing to minimal

land requirements (up to 5 acres). Also, the air quality

81 Boeing Commercial ~rplane Group et al., Phase 11 Summary, op. cit., footnote 8, p. 11.

gz~e definition of “aiwo~” in 14 cFR 150.7 specifically excluded heliports until 1989.
Chapter 3-Tiltrotor Sy stem Issues ● 53

impact of tiltrotor engine emissions should be relatively small. In the Los Angeles basin, aircraft exhaust

and fueling emissions from all aviation operations contribute about 1 percent of the total volatile organic

compounds. FAA and the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) are addressing these air quality issues

by requiring that new jet engines reduce organic compounds emissions by 60 to 90 percent. EPA is considering regulations requiring vapor recovery systems for

aircraft fueling,83 and civil tiltrotors would be required

to meet these standards.

Role of the Airlines

Commercial tiltrotor passenger service in the

United States, if practical, will likely be controlled by

major air carriers rather than by new tiltrotor airlines.

Potential tiltrotor routes are now dominated by jetliner shuttle flights or commuter airlines associated

with the major carriers. While tiltrotors could offer a

way to avoid the shortage of airport gates and runway

slots that hinder access into the largest intercity air

travel markets, high purchase and operating costs and

necessary technical sophistication could put tiltrotors

out of the reach of financially strapped startup airlines.

Moreover, the formidable marketing power of major

airlines-extensive route networks, frequent flyer programs, travel agent commissions, and computer reservation and ticket pricing databases—has become

essential in competing for air travelers. Most commuter airlines now operate under the name of a major

carrier, who often dictates the smaller airline’s schedules, airport gates, and advertising.

U.S. airlines have expressed little interest in commercial tiltrotors. Beset with financial losses in recent

years, a number of airlines concentrate on day-to-day

survival. tiltrotor aircraft, which will cost more to

purchase and operate than conventional airplanes and

will require new infrastructure, turn few heads in airline management. Before an airline will consider placing orders for a commercial tiltrotor, it must be

convinced that the aircraft is operationally reliable and

economically viable. Data from military production

and operation of the V-22 and a civil tiltrotor demonstration program would get airlines’ attention regarding tiltrotor technical performance. Proven

community acceptance and a public commitment to

install the infrastructure would also be crucial.

Establishing that commercial tiltrotor has more

than a niche market potential is another matter. Tiltrotor costs and public policies regarding airport congestion combine to offer few incentives for airlines to

introduce tiltrotor service. The potential benefits of

commercial tiltrotors would not go to an airline’s balance sheet, but would instead go mostly to the tiltrotor

passengers, who would get quicker and easier trips.

The general public would also receive expanded aviation system capacity for relatively little infrastructure

investment. The tiltrotor’s advantage to individual airlines is unclear. Data from the Phase II report indicate

that beating the profitability of jetliner shuttles, which

in most cases can switch to larger airplanes as demand

grows, is questionable (see table 3-5 again). Furthermore, a recent analysis indicates that the primary air

carriers in the NEC lost $11 million in operations there

in 1990.84 The need and value of freed runway slots has

not been demonstrated, and there is no policy to ensure that an airline could take advantage of the runway

slots it opens through tiltrotor service.

Financing

The Federal Government has spent over $2.5 billion for XV-15 and V-22 development programs,85 and

private industry has invested another $200 million to

$300 million of its discretionary funds on tiltrotor

technology. 86 Around $1 billion to $1.5 billion more

will be necessary for U.S. industry to develop, certify,

and produce a commercial tiltrotor,sT and like other

U.S. commercial aircraft programs, most of this funding would have to come from private sources. So far,

private industry has not pledged to develop a commercial tiltrotor.

83Nicholas p. IG-ull, office of Environment and Energy, Federal Aviation Administration, personal COmmUni@iOn, JUIY 31, lg~.

84John P. O’Donnell, VolpeNational Transportation Systems Center, personaI COmmUnicZitiOn, June 28,1991.

85Boeing Gmmercia] Airplane Group et al., Phase 11 Summa~, op. cit., footnote 8, p. 4.

86Federal Aviation Administ~tion, R~~r~h, Engineering and Development Advisory ~mmittee, tiltrotor Technology Subcommittee,

Reporr (Washington, DC: June 26, 1990), p. 12.

87philip c. No~ine, mm president, ~mmercial Market Development, Bell Heli~pter Tefiron, personal communication, Feb. 6, 19%
54 ● New Ways: Tiltrotor Aircraft and Magnetically Levitated Vehicles

The five European governments that sponsor Eurofar have spent $30 million88 on commercial tiltrotor

studies during the past 3 years and are developing a

technology base and considering building a tiltrotor

demonstrator over the next 5 years. The figures for the

TW-68 tiltwing program, financed to date only by

Ishida Corporation, are not publicly available. However, Ishida officials claim funding is assured through

prototype flight testing.

Without continued production of the V-22 or additional public funding to develop and demonstrate civil

tiltrotor technology, a U.S. company will not build a

commercial tiltrotor this decade. A recurring question

in debates on Federal participation in civil tiltrotor

programs is “if the technology is such a good idea, why

doesn’t U.S. industry fund it without public support.”

One group that looked into this question concluded

that the reasons are: 1) a lack of long-term capital

support in the United States; 2) insufficient or nonexisting infrastructure; and 3) no confidence or commitment from potential operators without operational

test data.89

The Phase 11 study recommends creating a 4-year

program, costing roughly $250 million, to develop further the tiltrotor vehicle and infrastructure technologies and to assess the feasibility and benefits of a

commercial tiltrotor system.90 The centerpiece of the

program is a series of operational demonstrations using XV-15 and V-22 tiltrotors. Commercial product

development or production is not proposed.

Federal support for VTOL infrastructure is continuing. Federal Airport Improvement Program grants

are available for planning and building landing facilities that relieve traffic from air carrier airports (as

would be expected at vertiports). FAA has provided

about $3 million to local authorities for vertiport planning studies, and it is expected that construction grants

will be available for vertiports. However, FAA policy

is not yet clear on vertiport construction. Expected

Federal capital grants for the first public heliport designed to accommodate 40,000-pound tiltrotors were

tied up within FAA because no manufacturer has committed to producing commercial tiltrotors, and the

need for vertiports has not yet been (officially) established. 91 However, a portion of the earlier assigned

Airport Improvement Program funds was awarded in

fiscal year 1991, and FAA plans to issue additional

funds in fiscal years 1992 and 1993 for the Dallas

Convention Center heliport.92

Findings and Conclusions

For tiltrotors to succeed commercially, the congestion and delays that have increasingly plagued roads

and airports during the past decade must continue to

grow. Airlines and their customers will demand tiltrotors (which cost more to build and operate than

competing fixed-wing aircraft) only if the expense of

ground and air congestion becomes too severe. While

most aviation forecasts project that passenger demand

will grow faster than airport capacity, future congestion levels are difficult to assess. FAA predicts most

increases in aircraft flights will occur at hub airports,

where airline scheduling strategies rather than passenger demand determine how crowded the runways and

ramps become. Moreover, the same airline philosophies, community concerns about noise, and public

policies that have hampered other means of overcoming air travel delays will affect tiltrotor use.

Although further research and FAA certification

approval would be needed, the technical feasibility of

safely carrying passengers with tiltrotors is not seriously in doubt, and tiltrotors could offer one way to

avoid clogged highways and overburdened runways

and might help expand the capacity of busy hub airports. High-density urban-to-urban routes and feeder

service to congested hubs are the most promising markets for commercial tiltrotors. A tiltrotor network

would offer significant time savings relative to jet service for trips under 500 miles, but it is unclear how far

tiltrotors would penetrate into the markets seined by

the generally more cost-effective jet shuttles. Without

similar time savings over less expensive commuter

feeder flights from small communities, tiltrotor service

88Nowine, Op. Cit., footnote 10-

89Federa] Aviation Administration, op. cit., footnote 86, p. 6.

9oJohn zUk, chief, Ci~l Te~hno]~~ offi~, NASA Am= R~earch &nter, pemonal communication, Apr. 11, Iggl.

glchris ~aSham, vim Pr~ident, Charl= Wil]is & ~ociates, Inc., pemonal communication, May 20,1991.

%!Ibid.
Chapter 3—tiltrotor System Issues “ 55

would be economically feasible only if subsidized. Replacing atypical turboprop roundtrip feeder flight with

39-seat tiltrotor service would cost about $500 extra93

but would free one “slot” that could be used by a larger

and more productive aircraft.94 This amounts to only

a few dollars each for passengers on a 300-seat jetliner,

but is more than the typical landing fee charged to the

same aircraft. With the exception of flights at the four

“slot-controlled” airports, airlines have little incentive

to free runway slots, since this would be equally helpful

to competitors. Furthermore, Federal regulations95

prohibit the transfer of commuter slots to large jetliner

flights.

Individual airlines have little interest in pushing for

commercial tiltrotor development. While tiltrotor

passengers and the aviation system as a whole might

benefit from tiltrotor service, airlines see mostly risks

and no additional profits over the status quo. Thus, the

market for commercial tiltrotors is speculative, even if

a suitable infrastructure were available and airlines

and local communities accepted tiltrotor operations,

both of which are far from guaranteed.

The time savings of tiltrotor service hinges on wellsituated vertiports. Since tiltrotors do not need runways, 5-acre or smaller vertiports might be built at

accessible locations where conventional airports

would be environmentally unfeasible or prohibitively

expensive. But aircraft noise is a serious problem for

airport operators and airlines, and is the leading obstacle to community acceptance for tiltrotor. On the other

hand, tiltrotor engineers predict that less noise will

reach the ground from tiltrotors than from conventional airplanes or helicopters.

The capabilities of airside infrastructure are also

essential to tiltrotor success. Real estate height restrictions and noise will be kept to a minimum if tiltrotors

fly steep angles into and out of urban vertiports, but

this requires advanced guidance technology and procedures. If tiltrotors make inroads into the busiest

intercity travel corridors, they will increase substantially the number of daily flights in the ATC system.

Three to five tiltrotors would be needed to carry the

passengers served by each jetliner. Although tiltrotors

might fly in new or less crowded corridors, compatible

ATC capabilities must be ensured lest tiltrotors overcome one form of congestion just to create another.

To enhance public acceptance of tiltrotor operations, technologies need to be perfected that improve

rotor designs to reduce noise; ensure operating safety

through well-tested cockpit instruments, controls, displays, and pilot training procedures; and enable steep

flight paths to and from vertiports. Each of these research, development, and demonstration efforts is

equally valuable to most civil VTOL aircraft.

Given these uncertainties, private industry and investors have not committed the substantial funds

needed to develop a commercial tiltrotor. The Federal

Government has spent over $2.5 billion for XV-15 and

V-22 development programs,96 and private industry

has invested another $200 million to $300 million on

military tiltrotor technology.97 U.S. industry would

have to inject around $1 billion to $1.5 billion more to

produce a commercial tiltrotor.gs

Without Federal management and financial support for infrastructure and precommercial tiltrotor

technology development and testing, U.S. industry will

not produce commercial tiltrotors in this decade. If the

V-22 program is continued, enough engineering and

operational experience might be gained for industry

and investors to make firm decisions, either pro or con,

regarding commercial tiltrotor production. Industry

observers believe that the V-22 design is unacceptable

for most commercial transport applications, due to

economic and civil performance penalties inherent in

meeting military requirements. However, some V-22

structural and propulsion designs and components

might be directly transferable to a commercial tiltrotor. Because it has worked closely with DOD to

g3~e average No~heaSt @mdor commuter route (jn the phaSe II market base) is 172 mi[~ one way and seined by w-seat turboprop aircraft.

g4~e extra tjltrotor ~~mst ~r-slot ~a=ted!l C~Uld be reduced signifi~ntly if fewer tiltrotor flights (but equivalent weekly passenger ~paCity)

were used. However, passengem generally consider lower frequencies as a decline in senice quality.

9514 CFR 93, Subpart K.

96Boeing ~mmercial Airplane Group et al., Phase 11 Summa~, op. cit., footnote 8, P. 4.

g7Fe&ral Aviation Administration, op. Cit., fOOtnOte 86, p. 12.

%Nowine, op. cit., footnote 87.
56 ● New Ways: tiltrotor Aircraft and Magnetically levitated Vehicles

collect data from the V-22 flight test program, FAA is

well positioned to certify a V-22 for noncommercial,

civil operations by 1995 if a sponsor requests it.

The national benefits and industrial competitiveness implications stemming from commercial tiltrotor

need further study, especially if significant Federal

support for a U.S.-produced vehicle or the accelerated

development of tiltrotor infrastructure is considered.

Currently, the United States has about a 5-year development lead worldwide in tiltrotor technology, and

with over one-half the potential demand for commercial tiltrotors overseas, this suggests a possibly favorable trade position. However, there is foreign interest

in developing high-speed VTOL aircraft and producing commercial vehicles. Regardless of Federal and

industry decisions for tiltrotor, the Ishida Group of

Japan will likely sell the first high-speed VTOLaircraft

in the civil market. However, the Ishida tiltwingwill be

designed, developed, and produced in the United

States.

If tiltrotor service can overcome air and ground

congestion, and even reduce delays at busy airports, it

could enhance domestic productivity. But these gains

must be balanced with the changed noise patterns,

higher energy consumption, and increased air traffic

that would arise from tiltrotor operations.
CHAPTER 4

Magnetic Levitation

and Related Systems
CONTENTS

Page

System Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

State of the Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6 4

maglev Systems in Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

U.S. Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Status of German maglev . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Status of Japanese maglev . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70

maglev R&D Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2

Economic Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Market Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Regulations and Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Institutional Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ., . ., ........76

Safety Certification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,76

Guideways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78

Health and Environmental Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81

Institutional and Financing Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Community Acceptance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......82

Intergovernmental and Financing Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Economics and Market Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Guideways and Right-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Research and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Institutional Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Boxes

Box Page

4-A maglev Suspension Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......62

4-B. Alternative Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,63

4-C. High-Speed Rail Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

4-D. High-Speed Passenger Rail Abroad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

4-E. High-Speed Rail Safety Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .‘.. ......77

4-F. Multiple Uses of Highway Rights-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Figure

4-1. maglev Suspension

Table

Figure

Page

Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Tables

Page

4-1. maglev and High-Speed Rail Corridors Under Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .61

4-2. Comparison of maglev and High-Speed Rail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

4-3. Funding for Freight and High-Speed Ground Transportation Research ... . . . . . .......68

4-4. Comparative Economic Data for 250-mph maglev and 200-mph High-Speed Rail ......75

4-5. Noise Characteristics of Transportation and Other Activities . +. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,82
CHAPTER 4

Magnetic Levitation and Related Systems

Twin goals—to relieve air and ground traffic congestion and to be technologically competitive in transportation—have prompted considerable interest in

the United States in high-speed ground transportation

alternatives. The ridership levels enjoyed by highspeed rail systemsl in France and Japan and in some

high-speed rail corridors in other countries demonstrate the feasibility of high-speed rail technology and

arouse interest in a guided ground transportation technology that is potentially even faster—magnetically

levitated (maglev) vehicles. High-speed rail is an offthe-shelf technology, and could be operated in the

United States over some existing rail right-of-way, if

the track were upgraded appropriately. maglev prototypes have been tested extensively, but to operate, a

maglev system would require new rights-of-way and

construction of a new and different guideway.

The uncertainties about ridership, costs, infrastructure investment, and some technical issues that accompany any new transportation technology make it hard

to assure the commercial success of either high-speed

rail or maglev in this country. In fact, efforts so far to

finance such new systems in the United States from

private sources have not succeeded. In addition, only a

sketchy regulatory framework currently exists here for

these technologies. Moreover, it is unclear whether

their environmental effects—principally noise and

electromagnetic fields—are acceptable to the public,

or which corridors have sufficient ridership potential

and feasible construction costs. At this point, it is safe

to say that intercity maglev will require some governmental support for system development, testing, and

construction.

Despite these unanswered questions, supporters of

intercity maglev and high-speed rail systems claim a

number of benefits: superior safety, economic development near stations along the corridor, low air pollution, technology leadership and export potential

from developing or implementing an advanced transportation system, independence from petroleumbased fuels, improved transport energy efficiency, increased tourism and employment, and reduced (airline

competitive) travel time and congestion of other transportation modes. In addition to transporting passengers, both could carry low-density freight during

offpeak hours, and their rights-of-way could be used

for other purposes, such as fiberoptic cables and other

communications links. Obstacles to both maglev and

high-speed rail center around right-of-way acquisition,

infrastructure costs, and an uncertain market.

High-speed rail technologies capable of speeds

greater than 125 to 150 miles per hour (mph) have

been commercially introduced on a wide scale in

France, Japan, and, most recently, Germany. Generally considered for the same intercity corridors as

maglev, such systems have received serious consideration in the United States in California, Texas, and

Florida. A number of other areas have either completed studies or are now evaluating potential highspeed service.

maglev concepts can include one or many vehicles,

but all include levitating and propelling a mass transportation vehicle or vehicles by magnetic forces.

maglev systems are potentially quiet, efficient transportation alternatives that could make the Nation less

dependent on petroleum, the source of 97 percent of

U.S. transportation energy. A number of designs and

applications have been developed or proposed for

maglev, ranging from low-speed people movers to intercity trains traveling 300+ mph. Although maglev

has not yet been used for high-speed commercial service, systems are under evaluation for several applications worldwide. For example, Transrapid technology

developed in Germany is being considered for corridor

and feeder routes in the United States and has been

examined as a potential option for the Soviet Union,

Saudi Arabia, and Canada. Opinion among high-speed

ground transportation experts in this countryis sharply

divided on whether to develop U.S.-based technology

or adapt existing foreign technologies to U.S. condi1 ~ese are steel wheel-on-rail systems that travel at sustained speeds in exeess of125 miles per hour.

-59-
60 ● New Ways: Tiltrotor Aircraft and Magnetically Levitated Vehicles

tions. Table 4-1 describes the status of various intercity

corridor projects, both maglev and high-speed rail, in

the United States.

This chapter discusses various technologies and issues for maglev, including research and development

(R&D), estimated performance characteristics, environmental impacts, costs, benefits, and the institutional framework surrounding maglev, including

safety, regulation, and financing. Comparisons and

contrasts for high-speed rail are provided in many

instances, since it is an option that is available now. At

issue are the appropriate Federal roles in developing

U.S.-based technology, adapting existing foreign systems to U.S. applications, developing safety standards,

and funding intercity corridors and demonstration

projects.

System Concepts

maglev designs, which run the gamut from slowspeed people movers (50 mph or less) to high-speed

(300+ mph) passenger vehicles, have been proposed

for intracity as well as intercity applications. maglev

vehicles, which could consist of one to any number of

passenger cars, are supported, guided, and propelled

by electromagnetic or electrodynamics forces over a

dedicated (usually elevated) guideway (see figure 4-l).

maglev systems generally fall into two categories, characterized by how the vehicle is suspended. The suspension technologies for proposed and existing maglev

designs include electromagnetic suspension (EMS),

which the high-speed German Transrapid uses, and

electrodynamics suspension (EDS), used by the Japanese National Railways (JR) system (see box 4-A).

Alternative designs have been proposed that incorporate automatic banking features to improve passenger

comfort through curves while still maintaining high

speeds. maglev concepts considered in this chapter are

limited to multisection vehicles operating on trunk

lines. Other concepts, such as single-vehicle operations serving offline stations, are described in box 4-B.

Although top speeds of 300 mph would dwarf the

capabilities of any existing ground transportation system, additional time savings diminish over a given

distance for successive speed increases. Station stop

times at intermediate points, reduced speed through

curves, and the additional time required for acceleration and deceleration also lower average trip speed and

increase overall travel time. Thus, a straight route

without unnecessary stops will enhance ridership prospects for maglev. Proposed station sites include city

centers, airports, suburbs, and passenger terminals for

other modes. Almost all maglev concepts currently

envision just one system operator using the infrastructure.

Other potential advantages of maglev include enormous passenger capacity and vehicle consist2 flexibility. Since maglev vehicles in some concepts could

depart at intervals of 1 minute or less (current highspeed rail systems operate at 3- to 4-minute intervals),

as many as 10,000 to 20,000 passengers per hour could

be moved with 200-passenger vehicles. Because most

maglev systems do not have onboard propulsion units

(the power is in the guideway), small passenger vehicles might be feasible, which would allow direct, economical, point-to-point service without intermediate

stops. For commuter and people mover applications,

maglev offers no fundamental advantage over conventional rail technology, although it may produce less

noise, be less costly to maintain, and be able to accelerate faster. Short, slower speed maglev routes have

been proposed more for reasons of technology demonstration and possible economic development than for

any dramatic improvements over existing technology

options.

For passenger comfort, both the Transrapid and JR

systems would require a route with little horizontal or

vertical curvature to achieve revenue speeds as high as

those reached in tests. Even high-speed rail systems,

such as the French TGV, need a straight right-of-way

in order to achieve top revenue speeds (presently 186

mph). Since a straight right-of-way is not feasible in

many of the U.S. intercity corridors most in need of

additional high-speed capacity, some designers have

proposed a maglev system capable of high speeds

around curves, through a vehicle that can tilt, a banking

guideway, or both.

Tilting technology is not new; in fact, tilting trains

are currently in use in Italy, Sweden, and Spain that

2 ~nsistrefers to the order and number of ears in a train.
Table 4-1—maglev and High-Speed Rail Corridors Under Consideration

Corridor Route length Technology Overseeing authority Status and cost

Orlando Airport- 13.5 miles maglev (Transrapid) Originally the Florida High Speed The system was certified by the State of Florida in June

International Drive Rail Transportation

Commission (State legislature

commissioned), now the

F!orida Department of

Transportation’s Office of High

Speed Transportation

Tampa-Orlando-Miami 325 miles Most likely steel-wheel Florida High Speed Rai

high-speed rail Transportation Commission

Houston-Dailas- 610 miles Steel-wheel

Austin-San Antonio rail (TGV)

high-speed Texas High Speed Rail Authority

(authorized by State

Iegisilature)

Anaheim-Las Vegas 265 miles Maglev (Transrapid) California-Nevada Super Speed

Ground Transportation

Commission

1991 with the stipulation that construction begin

within 3 years and operation within 5 years.

Preliminary estimates place the cost at around $500

million. The project is a privately funded venture with

Japanese, German, and U.S. investors financing

the project.

Originality supposed to be a public-private venture, the

project has been put on hold due to lack of private

investors. Originally the State investment was

expected to total $6.8 billion, but that is likely to

increase dramatically without private funds.

A franchise was awarded in May 1991 to a consortium

headed by Morrison-Knudsen, which will build a

TGV system. Southwest Airlines opposed

consideration of public financial support for this

system and took steps to ensure that State law

prohibiting such funding was followed. Costs for the

project are estimated to be $5.8 billion. Some

public-private financial cooperation is expected.

in the summer of 1990, the Bechtel Corp. was awarded

a franchise to build a system. Bechtel began an

environmental impact study, planning for system

Pittsburgh Possible 19-mile Maglev (Transrapid) maglev, inc. (consortium)

demonstration

project

construction in 1993.It recently pushed back that

date 5 years. The project, originally thought to be

completely privately funded, was estimated to cost

$5.1 billion. Bechtel’s announced delay has been

caused by difficulty in lining up private investors.

The group released a feasibility study recommending

the building of a demonstration project connecting

downtown Pittsburgh with the airport. Later projects

would connect Pittsburgh with outlying communities

in a three-State area. The group envisions starting

construction of the demonstration project in 1997,

but funding concerns have yet to be resolved.

SOURCE: Office of Technology J@sessment, 1991.
62 . New Ways: Tiltrotor Aircraft and Magnetically Levitated Vehicles

Figure 4-1—maglev Suspension Concepts

Vehicle

Electromagnetic maglev

Air gap

approx. 3

Electrodynamics maglev

Repulsing

magnets

Vehicle

Air gap

approx. 4“

Guideway

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Assessment of the Potential for Magnetic Levitation Transportation Systems in the United States

(Washington, DC: June 1990).

allow a 30-percent greater speed through curves than

conventional trains, but the benefit for maglev of tilting vehicles or banking guideways depends on the particular alignment in question. Many see interstate

highway right-of-way as desirable for maglev guideways or high-speed rail tracks because of its limited

access and potential low cost compared with other

rights-of-way, but even interstates, which were designed for 70 mph, are often too curvy for current

maglev designs to approach top speed. It has been

Box 4-A—maglev Suspension Concepts

High-speed magnetically levitated (maglev)vehicles use one of two possible suspension technologies: electromagnetic suspension (EMS) or

electrodynamic suspension (EDS). EMS maglev

relies on magnetic attraction between the vehicle-mounted electromagnets and the underside

of the guideway. The lower portion of the vehicle

wraps under the guideway and is suspended by

magnetic forces lifting it up toward the bottom of

the guideway. EDS maglev relies on magnetic

repulsion to keep the vehicle suspended from the

guideway. For propulsion, all high-speed maglev

designs use a linear synchronous motor, with

power supplied to windings on the guideway(”active guideway”). With no physical contact between the vehicle and guideway at cruising

speeds, and few moving parts, maglev produces

no friction and has the potential for low maintenance compared to steel-wheel systems.

EMS maglev, used on the German Transrapid

system, requires sophisticated control of the gap

between the vehicle and guideway, which must be

maintained at about 8 millimeters. EDS maglev,

such as that used on the Japanese National Railways design, uses superconducting magnets for

suspension, allowing a gap about 10 times greater

than that for EMS maglev. Consequently, EDS

maglev does not require guide way tolerances as

precise, and may have lower construction costs

than EMS systems (see later discussion of costs).

Current EDS prototypes, however, have poorer

ride quality than EMS systems and require further development of suspension systems.

The HSST EMS technology uses a linear induction motor (LIM) with power transmitted to the

vehicle by means of a wayside third rail and a

sliding pickup system. This passive guideway

technology offers a lighter and less costly guideway, but is limited to a top speed in the 180 to 2OO

mile per hour range, due to LIM inefficiencies

and constraints on wayside power pickup.1

IChn~ Bmn, ~nadian InsKitute of Guided Ground ‘f’mmport, Queen’s University at Kingston, Ontario, personal communication, June 21, 1991+
Chapter 4-Magnetic Levitation and Related Systems ● 63

Box 4-B--Alternative Concepts

Among the many high-speed ground transportation concepts that have been proposed are several

variations of magnetic levitation (maglev) vehicles. Others use fundamentally different technologies for

guidance and propulsion.

The MIT Magneplane, a redueed-scale operational model of which was built in the 1970s, uses an

electrodynamically suspended vehicle with a guideway consisting of an aluminum sheet trough. This design

allows the vehicle to bank through curves, theoretically enabling high speeds and acceptable passenger

comfort. The Magneplane concept takes advantage of the ability of maglev’s synchronous motor propulsion

to control accurately the position of every vehicle in the system.1 Thus, vehicle intervals could be on the order

of 1 minute or less. Using offline stations and single-vehicle operations, the Magneplane has been proposed

for high-frequency, nonstop service between stations.

maglev concepts incorporating partially evacuated tubes have been proposed as a means of reducing

aerodynamic drag and increasing fuel efficiency and speed. Since aerodynamic drag accounts for more energy

consumption as speed increases, its elimination could enable speeds several times higher than conventional

maglev, high-speed rail, or even passenger jets, with negligible energy consumption.2

Photo credit.- Popular Mechanics

The Piasecki AirTrain concept uses aerospace technology for high-speed guided ground transportation.

 International, Inc., 

 National 1991”

Continued on next page
64 . New Ways: tiltrotor Aircraft and Magnetically Levitated Vehicles

Box 4-B, continued

The Piasecki AirTrain design uses a powered turbofan for propulsion andbraking. The AirTrain concept

entails light-weight passenger ears suspended from hinged links to rails in an elevated guideway, with

propulsion and braking from a ducted air propeller powered by a gas or diesel turbine engine or an electric

motor that takes current from an overhead rail in the guideway. Centrifugal forces would cause the passenger

car to bank when it enters a high-speed turn, thus naturally compensating for lateral forces and improving

passenger comfort. The rails would be enclosed to prevent derailment and debris on the track. Since the

AirTrain design calls for a ducted propeller for propulsion and retardation, it does not need a heavy weight

(typical for all conventional wheel-on-rail systems) to produce the necessary friction between wheel and rail.

The low vehicle weight could permit a lighter and less expensive guideway. Small retractable wings reduce

vibration levels and minimize guideway and suspension maintenance costs.3

sPia~eC~~rCmEt ~v.,A~Tra~H~@.SpeedGromd Transpoti Systq m~rt 99-X-21 (*ington, p~+ Mar- 69 19W)”

estimated that for the right-of-way of the New York maglev Systems in Operation

Thruway between New York and Buffalo, added bank-

—

ing capability could increase the average speed at which

maglev can travel and still provide acceptable passenger comfort from 170 to 220 mph.3 Box 4-C provides

basic information on high-speed rail concepts.

Most maglev concepts call for elevated guideways,

which can add significantly to initial infrastructure

costs. However, an elevated structure provides more

flexibility in dealing with vertical curvature constraints, is less susceptible to interference from foreign

objects or vandalism, and does not interfere as much

with agricultural or other ground activities as at-grade

construction. It also adds a margin of safety, since

grade crossings are eliminated.

State of the Technology

maglev technology has been developed primarily in

Japan and Germany, where major, long-term, government-supported research programs arc under way.

High-speed rail technology is most mature in Japan,

France, and Germany, where early research was government-supported and where systems are now in

revenue service. Table 4-2 gives a brief technical comparison between maglev and high-speed rail, and box

4-D describes the state of foreign high-speed rail systems.

The only two maglev systems in revenue operation

are relatively short, fully automated, slow-speed systems in Birmingham, England, and Berlin, Germany.

The Birmingham Airport maglcv, in operation for over

10 years, is a shuttle that runs along a 620-meter-long

guideway linking the airport and railway station. Although the short distance does not require high speeds,

maglcv technology was chosen because it was thought

to provide high reliability, low maintenance, and a high

degree of automation. The system has not proven particularly reliable, and maintenance costs have been

higher than expected because the system is unique and

requires special parts. The Berlin system consists of a

l-mile line, most of which has two tracks, connecting

the Berlin Philharmonic concert hall to a nearby metro

station. Supported by the West German Minister of

Research and Technology and the Berlin Senator for

Transport and Public Utilities, track construction began in 1983 and was completed in 1986. Operation of

this demonstration line began shortly thereafter. Neither system exceeds 50 mph.

U.S. Research

The High Speed Ground Transportation Act, passed

in 1965, established the Office of High Speed Ground

Transportation under the Department of Commerce,

3 Richard Gran, G~mman Corp., personal communication, Apr. ~, 1991.
Chapter 4-Magnetic Levitation and Related Systems ● 65

Box 4-C-High-Speed Rail Transportation

Although high-speed rail is similar to conventional electrified passenger rail, higher speeds are

achieved through dedicated rights-of-way, lighter

vehicle weight, more powerful propulsion, and

more precise track tolerances. The Japanese

Shinkansen and French TGVsteel-wheel systems

operate at high speeds over exclusive track and

have energy use and air quality benefits similar to

those projected for magnetic levitation (maglev)

systems. The TGV is also able to travel over

high-quality conventional track, albeit at lower

speeds, and thus its trains can penetrate city centers without extra right-of-way acquisition or construction. Existing TGV track has been built for

anticipated cruising speeds of 250 miles per hour

(mph), although speeds above the current 186

mph will require improvements in train technology. Still, some view regular speeds of greater

than 200 mph as achievable by the end of the

century. 1 Recent track tests of the TGV at 322

mph raise the possibility that such technology

may become even more competitive with air

travel or possible maglev systems.

High-speed rail shares certain characteristics

with maglev (and interstate highways), including

the need for total grade separation (at least along

high-speed stretches of routes), expensive rightof-way construction (either new track or upgrading existing track), and tunneling or bridge work

to avoid vertical and horizontal curves and maintain “fast” right-of-way and high ride quality.

maglev is able to negotiate steeper grades than

high-speed rail. Both maglev and high-speed rail

use automated speed and interval control, limiting the responsibility of onboard operators during routine operations and providing automatic

override in the event of operator error or incapacity.

IB~W Jam=, “FrCncb TwhnO]Ogy,W 1~k??@iOTZaI ~flazd

?Wwne, Oct. 31,1990, pp. 15-16.

Table 4-2—Comparison of maglev and

High-Speed Rail

maglev High-speed rail

Possible top revenue speeds

of 300 mph.

Totally new infrastructure

required; higher initial

construction cost; possibly

low maintenance costs.

Noise level equal to or lower

than high-speed rail at

identical speeds. Quieter at

low speeds because no

friction (EMS).

No high-speed revenue

experience.

Less energy use at low

speeds.

180 mph speeds on

straightaways, 200+ mph

revenue speeds

achievable before end of

decade.

New right-of-way and tracks

needed for high speed, but

existing tracks might be

used (at low speeds) for

urban operations;

lower construction cost.

Noise level of 85 to 90 decibels

at a distance of 25 meters

(82 feet) from the track at

train speed of 160 mph. At

185 mph, noise levels can

be in the 90-to 100-decibel

range.

Fatality-free revenue

experience.

Consumes similar amounts of

energy per seat-mile as

projected for maglev at

similar high speeds.

Faster acceleration than highspeed rail.

Can climb steeper grades than

hiqh-speed -, rail.

KEY: mph - miles per hour; EMS == electromagnetic suspension.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991.

to explore advanced intercity ground transportation

technologies. Although Ihe stimulation of maglev research was not a major motivation behind this act,

most early maglev work occurred around the time of

its passage. The earliest U.S. work on maglev systems

was carried out by Brookhaven National Laboratory,

the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Ford Motor Co., Stanford Research Institute, Rohr Industries,

Boeing Acrospacc Co., The Garrett Corp., Mitre

Corp., and TRW Systems, Inc. maglev work in the

United Slates--+ther than feasibility studies and technical assessments conducted by government, industry,

and universities-essentially ended in 1975, with the
66 ● New Ways: tiltrotor Aircr@and Magnetically f_evitated Vehicles

Box 4-D—High-Speed Passenger Rail Abroad

High-speed rail systems have been in successful commercial operation for several years. Two of the best

known systems are the TGV in France and the Shinkansen in Japan. Germany has a prototype high-speed

train, the Intercity Express (ICE), which is designed for speeds between 150 and 180 miles per hour (mph).

More than 40 German trainsets are now being manufactured, and revenue service began in 1991 on the

Hamburg-Frankfurt-Munich line. (The U.S. Amtrak Metroliner, which achieves speeds of 125 mph along

some stretches between Washington, DC, and New York City of the Northeast Corridor, is the only US. rail

service that approaches the speeds of foreign high-speed systems.)

In France: Train a Grand Vitesse (TGV)

The TGV, France’s high-speed rail system, began operations in the early 1980s. Construction on the

newest line of the TGV, the Atlantique, began in 1985. The line is Y-shaped and consists of a main line between

Paris and Courtalain and two auxiliary branches. The western Paris-Le Mans branch was completed in 1989,

and the southwestern Paris-Tours line was completed in 1990. Total estimated cost is 16 billion francs ($3

billion) for construction of 163 miles of track and rolling stock. The line includes 13 miles of tunnels, located

mainly in Paris and the Loire Valley, and 2 miles of viaducts in the Loir, Cisse, Loire, and Cher Valleys.

Maximum design speed is 300 kilometers per hour (km/hr) (186 mph), with turnout crossing speeds between

160 and 220 km/hr (100 and 136 mph).

Land belonging to the SNCF, the French national railway company, the government, or alongside existing

rail or highway right-of-way was used for 60 percent of the Paris-Courtalain stretch. To avoid level crossings,

there are more than 310 structures along the line, including 164 road bridges and 139 rail bridges. Continuous

welded rail with reinforced concrete crossties is used throughout. The line is electrified and uses five power

substations. A control center located at Paris-Montparnasse includes telemetry and remote control equipment

for crossovers between the two tracks, spaced out along the line at approximately 14-mile intervals. It also

controls electric power feed and can intervene via radio links with all trains on the line. Fifteen satellite stations

house safety equipment for each crossover site. The track-to-locomotive transmission system sends signaling

information to the cab, where the driver reads it on the control panel. The trainsets include 2 power cars, one

at each end, and 10 trailers. The power car wheelsets use electric brakes, and the trailer wheelsets use antiskid

disc brakes.1

The TGV’s power and adhesion, and the dedication of the high-speed corridor to passenger service with

its light loads, made possible a line with gradients of up to 3.5 percent (on the Paris to Sud Est line—the

maximum grade on the Atlantique line is 2.5 percent) instead of the usual 0.5- to 0.8-percent gradient. As a

result, the line could be routed over plateaus where large-radius curves could be easily laid out, and thus avoid

valleys, which are often sinuous, densely populated, and furrowed by waterways and roadways—all of which

increase construction costs. The TGV lines are compatible with existing track and thus the trains can penetrate

city centers and serve all major stations on the line.2

In Japan: Shinkansen (Bullet Train)

The Shinkansen long-distance, high-speed railways include two groups, the Tokaido and Sanyo Shinkansen, which run southwest from Tokyo, and the Tohoku and Joetsu Shinkansen, which serve the regions to the

northeast. The Tokaido Shinkansen began service between Tokyo and Osaka (515 km) in October 1964, just

before the Tokyo Olympic games. In March 1972 the Sanyo Shinkansen began operating between Osaka and

Okayama (161 km). The Tohoku Shinkansen, which runs north from Tokyo, began operation between Omiya

and Morioka (465 km) in June 1982. The Joetsu Shinkansen runs across Honshu between the Sea of Japan

and the Pacific Ocean, and began operation between Omiya and Niigata (270 km) in November of the same

year. When the Japanese National Railways was privatized in 1987, these lines became the property of the new

.

ISNCF Di~ction de]a ~mmuniUtion, ’~e TGV A~lantiqUe: Construction of the New Line,” informational document, Jun~19W.

2SNCF~ Direction de la ~mmuni=tion, “The Railways of France,” brochure, n.d.

Continued on next #x3ge
Chapter 4---Magnetic Levitation and Related Systems ● 67

Box 4-D, continued

Shinkansen HoIding Corp. Over 2-1/2 billion passengers have been carried on the Shinkansen without injury.

The maximum speed for the Tohoku and Joetsu Shinkansen is now 150 mph. Five additional routes are

scheduled for future construction, including extensions from Morioka to Aomori, Takasaki to Osaka, Fukuoka

to Kagoshima, Fukuoka to Nagasaki, and Aomori to Sapporo.3

The Shinkansen Holding Corp. owns the four Shinkansen lines—Tohoku, Joetsu, Tokaido, and Sanyo—

and leases them to three of the passenger railway companies: the East Japan Railway Co., Central Japan

Railway Co., and West Japan Railway Co. The fees are calculated according to the traffic volume of each

Shinkansen line and other factors. The Shinkansen’s ability to take passengers directly from city center to city

center makes it competitive with airline and expressway transportation.4

As with many other railway systems, Shinkansen tracks are equipped with snow-melting facilities to

prevent railway switch points from freezing in cold weather. Additional measures are taken for lines that pass

through areas with heavy snowfall. Measures to prevent snow from adhering to or penetrating the operating

mechanisms of the cars include covering the lower parts of the cars and using centrifugal snow separators,

which remove snow from the intake air. 5

Trains operating in areas prone to earthquakes are protected by a combination of earthquake detection

and control systems, including seismometers installed every 20 to 80 km along the line. If land cables are

damaged by large earthquakes, a communications satellite system will be used to transmit information. 6

Other High-Speed Rail Systems

The principles of tilting train technology are independently rotating wheels mounted on guided axles, a

low center of gravity, light weight, and swivel coupling of car bodies. Development of one tilting train, the

Spanish Talgo, began in the 1940s. The latest model, the Talgo Pendular, is designed for a maximum speed on

straight track of 125 mph. It is designed to round curves safely and with no passenger discomfort at speeds 25

percent faster than that of conventional trains.7

The Talgo trainset is made up of a succession of rigid cars articulated to permit the train to negotiate

curves but prevent vertical or transversal displacements between cars. When rounding a curve, acceleration

felt by the passenger depends on the tilt of the car and is significantly reduced if the ear is tilted in toward the

center of the curve. Thus, a tilting train can substantially increase its speed around curves compared with

conventional trains. The Talgo system is based on raising the level of suspension above the center of gravity;

the air springs of the main suspension behave elastically, allowing the ear to tilt naturally around curves as a

result of centrifugal force. The Talgo train also features an automatic gauge-changing mechanism to accommodate different track gauges.8 Other tilting train configurations are manufactured by Bombardier of Canada,

Asea Brown Boveri, a Swedish-Swiss consortium, and Fiat of Italy.

The Swedish X-2000 and the Italian Pendolino use conventional track and employ active tilt technology,

using powered actuators, to reduce passenger discomfort when traveling through curves and to enable curve

speeds 25 to 40 percent faster than those of conventional trains. Tilt technology is being considered for the

Northeast Corridor to reduce travel time between New York and Boston to under 3 hours (presently

3EaSt 3apan R,ai~ay m., Shinkansen brochure, n-d.

41bid.

‘Ibid.

6

1bid.

7REN~, ITa~go: ~ Up-to-date Train; A~ng History;’ informational d~ument, n.d.

8REN=, *Talgo pendu]ar;’ informational brochure, n.d.

Continued on next @age
68 ● New Ways: Tiltrotor Aircraft and Magnetically Levitated Vehicles

Box 4-D, continued

4-1/2 hours) and between Washington and New York to under 2 hours, 15 minutes without having to acquire

new rights-of-way.

Obstacles to Conventional High-Speed Passenger Rail

Most obstacles to conventional high-speed passenger rail systems center around the high cost of rightsof-way. Operating faster passenger trains would require in most cases a new roadbed and in some cases a

separate right-of-way, because most of the track now used for passenger trains is also used by freight trains.

Scheduling high-speed passenger trains on the same track with slower speed freight trains presents serious

traffic and scheduling diffilculties. In addition, freight trains, because of their heavier weight, cause comparatively more track wear than passenger trains, and passenger trains tolerate less track wear. Furthermore, freight

trains cause tracks to come out of alignment more quickly, and because passenger trains require more precise

alignment, track maintenance is more expensive for track used for both passenger and freight transport.

(However, TGV trains in France operate at speeds up to 136 mph on track shared with conventional freight

and passenger trains.)

Since grade crossings of railroads and highways are where the highest percentage of fatal rail-related

accidents occur in the United States, it is generally agreed that high-speed trains should not operate over

highway grade crossings. However, the cost of eliminating grade crossings from existing mixed traffic lines is

considerable. In a study of the proposed Houston-Dallas-Fort Worth corridor,9 for example, the cost of grade

separations for highways, which included 135 structures, represents 17 percent of the total right-of-way-related

costs. Most European authorities have accepted higher speed service (up to about 100 mph) without the

elimination of all existing grade crossings.

gTem~ TUmPike J@hOrity, ‘Tm~ Tria@e High Speed Rail Studyj’ unpublished repofi, February lg~g”

termination of Federal funding for high-speed ground

transportation research. In fact, U.S. research activity Table 4-3—Funding for Freight and High-Speed

for all mass transportation, as reflected by R&D out- Ground Transportation Research

lays by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Federal Railroad and the Urban Mass Transportation Administration Administration

(UMTA)4 declined steadily through the 1980s (See

table 4-3).

R&D outlays

Years (in millions of dollars) Comments

1965-75 . . . . . . . . .

The National maglev Initiative

As a result of legislative action in 1990,5 directing

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) to

prepare and implement a plan for a national maglev

program, the Department of Transportation (DOT),

the Department of Energy (DOE), and the Corps developed what is now known as the National Maglev

Initiative (NMI). The NMI is a 2-year, $25-million

program to assess the engineering, economic, environmental, and safety aspects of maglev. A major program

1980 . . . . . . . . . . . .

1981 . . . . . . . . . . . .

1982 . . . . . . . . . . . .

1983 . . . . . . . . . . . .

1984 . . . . . . . . . . . .

1985 . . . . . . . . . . . .

1986 . . . . . . . . . . . .

1987 . . . . . . . . . . . .

1988 . . . . . . . . . . . .

1989 . . . . . . . . . . . .

$15.0 On high-speed ground

transportation

2.3 On maglev

63.0 Since 1980, these outlays

55.1 have gone toward

34.5 freight rail R&D.

18.5

14.7

16.2

15.4

10.9

10.6

7.0

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991, based on U.S. Department of Transportation data.

4 Both the Federal Rai]road Administration and the Urban Mass Transportation Administration are part of the U.S. Dcpmtment Of

Transportation.

s Appropriations ~nference report 101-235, for the Energy and Water Ikvclopment Act of 1990.
Chapter 4-Magnetic Levitation and Related Systems ● 69

report, planned for fall 1992, will include technical and

economic assessments, options for developing U.S.

capability to surpass existing foreign technologies, and

recommendations on whether to pursue future development. Twenty-seven contracts, totaling $4 million,

are currently being awarded to examine various subsystem technical issues, such as low-cost guideway construction, control systems, obstacle detection, and

magnet design. One more set of contracts will be

awarded shortly to examine various system concepts.

Since the fiscal year 1993 budgets are now being prepared by the agencies and many of the results of the

NMI are not expected until late 1992, it will be too late

for the latter to influence the former.

Blending staff from three different cabinet-level

departments has not been easy, and NMI team members have struggled to establish an effective working

group. FRA has primary Federal responsibility for rail

matters and has taken the lead role. FRA staff’s technical expertise and experience in conventional rail

safety and certification are transferable to some extent

to high-speed rail and maglev. However, the tasks of

developing guidelines and revised regulations for

maglev and high-speed rail safety features and requirements have required reaching outside the agency for

technical assistance.

Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) of DOE,

which has substantial research experience in energy

and propulsion systems, is playing the major role for

the NMI in technical issues regarding levitation, guidance, and propulsion through its Center for Transportation Research. The Argonne Center is also studying

vehicle-guideway interactions, developing requirements

for test facilities, investigating superconductor applications, and conducting laboratory experiments on

biomagnetic effects.c The Army Corps is providing

expertise and assistance with guideway construction

techniques and construction management.

FRA is depending heavily on staff from the Volpe

National Transportation Systems Center (VNTSC) in

Cambridge, Massachusetts, for support and administrative help for maglev research, in establishing safety

testing requirements and, eventually, developing new

standards. VNTSC is assisting FRA in conducting risk

assessments, evaluating the safety of foreign systems,

market and economic research, vehicle and guideway

research, administering research contracts, and investigating the health effects of electromagnetic fields

(EMF). Other portions of the EMF work are being

performed by the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) and ANL.

Other Research

DOT is also funding a study by the Transportation

Research Board (TRB) to investigate possible use of

maglev and high-speed rail technologies in U.S. corridors. In addition, a special committee on maglev transportation made up of technical experts has been

created within TRB to review work of the NMI.

Status of German maglev

German Government-supported maglev research

began in 1969,7 when the Federal Minister for Transport commissioned a study on high-speed, trackbound, ground transportation. In the early 1970s, the

firms AEG, Siemens, and Brown-Boveri commissioned a 150-mph EDS maglev vehicle in Erlangen,

which used superconducting vehicle magnets to attain

a 4-inch levitation height and used linear synchronous

motor propulsion.8 In 1977 the West German Federal

Minister of Research and Technology decided to concentrate development work on attractive suspension

(EMS) designs. A test facility with a 19.5-mile track

was put into operation in Emsland in northwest Germany in 1983, where more than 62,000 miles of tests

have been conducted to date.g Over $1 billion has been

spent on what is called the Transrapid maglev project,

and the vehicle has been developed to the preproduction prototype stage and tested extensively. Transrapid

International was formed initially as a consortium of

several German companies and institutes.

With Krauss Maffei, MBB, and Thyssen Henschel

as the principal participants, and support from the

German Federal Ministry of Research and Technol6 Donald Rote, Argonne National Laboratory, personal eommunieation, JUIY 3,1991.

7 me earli=t ~=earch on ~]ectromagnetic SuSWnSion maglWwaS ~nduCted by the Ge~an scientist Hermann Kemperin the early 1920s.

8 s. Kuznetsov, psM Technologies, Inc., personal eommunieation, July z, 191.

g William DiCWart, ~nsultant t. Transrapid International, pemonal eommuni~tion, June 28,1991.
70 ● New ways:: Tiltrotor Aircraft and Magnetically levitated vehicles

Photo credit: Magnetschnellbahn AG

The Transrapid maglev has been tested since the mid-1980s at a test track in Emsland, Germany.

ogy, the consortium has since been renamed Magnetschnellbahn and now includes Daimler-Benz, AEG,

and Siemens. The Transrapid 07, the most recent vehicle prototype, has a top speed of between 250 and 310

mph and accommodates 80 to 100 seated passengers

per section. Although Transrapid technology is presently the most advanced of maglev prototype systems,

some experts believe its precise guideway tolerance

requirements could lead to more costly construction

and higher maintenance costs than would characterize

other concepts.l”

A short maglev route connecting Cologne/Bonn

and Dusseldorf airports and the city of Essen has been

approved by the government, but the Transrapid system has not undergone complete certification testing

(travel through tunnels, two-way traffic), and the project lacks the necessary private sector funding. The

German Government has stipulated that the estimated

DM 3.6 billion in capital costs for the route must be

shared by private industry, the airports and airlines,

and the state of North Rhine-Westphalia, and it is not

clear that this condition can be met.11 Several intercity

routes are currently being considered by the German

Government, but there is no firm funding commitment

yet.

Status of Japanese maglev

The Japanese Railway Technical Research Institute

(RTRI), supported by the recently privatized Japanese

National Railways, has developed an EDS maglev system that is some 7 years behind the Transrapid system

in development. It is similar in concept to the early

research conducted in the United States by Powell and

Danby of Brookhaven National Laboratory. Work began in 1967, and R&D costs through 1990 exceeded $1

billion. The vehicle (MLU-002) has a design speed of

about 300 mph and has been tested at a 7-km test

facility in Miyazaki. It requires less sensitive tolerances

between the vehicle and the guideway than does the

German system, and thus may be less costly to construct and maintain. However, its ride quality is not

satisfactory, and improvements are to be made in the

 director, High Speed Ground Transportation Center, Carnegie Mellon University, testimony at hearings the 

Committee on Science, and Transportation, Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, Oct. 17,1989.
Chapter4-Magnetic Levitation and Related Systems . 71

Photo credit: Railway Technical Research Institute

The Japanese MLU maglev vehicle uses electromagnetic (repulsive) suspension, which was invented in the United States.

suspension design. The JR system is the only maglev

technology that uses high-temperature superconductors; this could bring modest gains in energy efficiency

and reliability. Recent advances in developing hightemperature, superconducting materials are not likely

to affect the overall feasibility of this technology.

A 27-mile test guideway is under development in

Yamanashi prefecture for possible inclusion in a future revenue line between Tokyo and Osaka, and an

extensive 4-year test of the system is expected to commence in 1993. The funding request for construction of

the test track and for testing is approximately $3 billion,

with the construction cost amounting to $2.3 billion.12

RTRI receives funds from the Japan Railways Group,

a consortium that includes six passenger railway companies, the Japan Freight Railway Co., and the Japanese Government (Ministry of Transportation).

Construction of transportation facilities is handled by .

the Ministry of Construction.13

The other major Japanese system is the HSST

EMS design with an unpowered guideway. The existing

prototype, the HSST-1OO, has a top speed of 60 mph,

but the HSST-200 and HSST-300 design concepts

could reach 125 and 186 mph, respectively. Development of this system began in 1975 by Japan Airlines

(JAL); the technology was transferred to the HSST

Corp. in 1985. Since 1981, the HSST system has received no government funding, and financial support

has come mainly from JAL. As of mid-1988, over $40

million had been spent on the R&D program. The

HSST-1OO maglev has been demonstrated extensively

but has never realized its top design speed during these

demonstrations because the tracks have been limited

to lengths of less than 1 mile. It remains under development with no estimated completion date. Because

 Institute of Guided Ground Transport, Update of Super-Speed Ground Transportation Technology 

 Capabilities, report No. 89-16 (Kingston, Ontario, Canada: Queens University, May25, 1990), p. 4.7.

 op. cit., footnote 10.
72 . New Ways: Tiltrotor Aircraft and Magnetically Levitated Vehicles

of its relatively low maximum speed in relation to other

maglev designs, the HSST system will probably not

compete with the RTRI system over longer routes.

However, the technology is more mature, and because

of its relative design simplicity and low guideway costs,

it might find early applications in people mover and

commuter service.14

maglev R&D Needs

Some maglev R&D needs are unique to either EMS

or EDS systems, while others are shared by both. Some

areas needing further development, like switching and

low-cost guideway construction, will not preclude construction of short, simple maglev routes, whereas other

areas, such as magnet refrigeration and control of

EMF for EDS, must be adequately addressed before

revenue operation can proceed.

Switching is an important subsystem that needs further development for both EMS and EDS. The Emsland test track in Germany uses moveable guideway

segments, but other (nonmechanical) concepts for

EMS and EDS maglev have been proposed, such as

electromagnetic switching, that could possibly provide

higher switching speed and reliability without moving

guideway structural members.

Since guideway design and construction represent

the majority of total system cost, it is important to

minimize this cost component. Research is needed to

develop optimal guideway shapes that make the most

efficient use of materials and yet meet requirements

for tolerance and low maintenance (see later cost discussion for tradeoffs associated with various guideway

concepts). Construction and fabrication methods that

minimize onsite time and labor requirements and

thereby reduce cost are also needed.

Less developed than EMS maglev, the EDS maglev

still requires considerable research and testing. Further development needs for EDS maglev include: negotiating curves while maintaining adequate stability,

cooling the superconducting magnets, designing sus-

 op. cit., footnote 6.
Chapter 4-Magnetic Levitation and Related Systems . 73

pension systems for high ride quality, and limiting

EMF in the passenger compartment (see EMF discussion later in this chapter). These areas must be adequately addressed before any system will be

commercially feasible. Progress has been made in the

last two areas by the latest Miyazaki test vehicle using

niobium-titanium magnets and active shielding of the

passenger compartment.15

High-speed rail, although a mature technology

compared with maglev, needs further development, if

it is to achieve speeds of 200 mph or more. R&D needs

include braking capabilities, wheel/rail dynamics, and

electric current collection techniques.

Economic Considerations

Since infrastructure costs make up the majority of

upfront system costs, and routes are not easily

changed once they are constructed, it is critical that

both a need and an adequate ridership for maglev or

high-speed rail are established before routes are approved. Extensive market research is needed for understanding of modal preferences, travel time needs, and

door-to-door travel trends for maglev; better cost and

pricing information is available for high-speed rail,

making potential ridership easier to estimate.

In a 1983 study OTA found that the following characteristics are important for a high-speed surface

transportation corridor:

●

●

●

●

cities grouped along a route giving major passenger travel flows in the 100-to 300-mile trip range;

cities with high population and high population

densities;

a strong “travel affinity” between cities; and

cities with developed local transportation access

to feed the high-speed rail line.i6

Travel between city pairs with major passenger

travel flows in the 100- to 300-mile range generally

occurs by air or automobile, so for a maglev or highspeed rail service to be successful, significant shifts

would have to be made away from air or automobile

travel. Although connections are important if a maglev

or high-speed rail system is to compete with automobiles, they are less critical if the system is designed to

serve the air travel market.

Some projected shifts to maglev are likely to be

opposed by private-sector transportation providers,

such as some airlines and rental car companies, which

have already attempted to block implementation of

such new systems. In the Texas corridor (see table 4-1

again), for example, Southwest Airlines, which operates extensively between cities along the route, has

lobbied successfully for legislation that prohibits public financing of high-speed rail. However, some airlines

might be supportive of new surface transportation

systems that were not direct market competitors. In

addition, construction of the Orlando Airport-International Drive maglev route has encountered resistance from the airport authority, who feared a loss of

rental car business to a new transportation mode that

will also be a tourist attraction.

Market Potential

Of the U.S. corridors with the characteristics listed

above, only the New York-Washington, DC, rail corridor of Amtrak, where speeds of 125 mph are reached,

currently provides airline-competitive rail service. Indeed, Amtrak carries more passengers between these

cities than does any single airline. At present, service

on other rail corridors is too slow or too infrequent (or

both) to compete successfully with airlines. Other city

pairs may be strong candidates for intercity maglev or

high-speed rail service, but independent, detailed ridership forecasts and cost-benefit analyses are needed

to help determine whether public support is warranted.

Estimates of potential ridership are usually based

on origin-destination data (or estimates thereof) for

air, rail, automobile, and bus traffic, and on projections

of future demographic trends. Reliable data for automobile travel and for all door-to-door trips are next to

lsKWnetsov, op. cit., footnote g.

IGu.s, ~ngr=, office Of Technolo~ Assessment, U.S. Pussenger Rail Technologies, OTA-STI-222 (Washington? DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office, December 1983), p. 29.
Photo credit: East Japan Railway Co.

The world’s first high-speed rail service was provided by the Japanese Shinkansen (bullet train),

impossible to obtain, making intercity ridership for

new maglev or high-speed rail systems extremely difficult to estimate. Uncertainties in forecasting and in

projecting fare revenues are among the reasons that

raising private capital for financing new systems has

proven so difficult. (See chapter 2 for further details.)

Population and travel density determine the size of

the potential market for maglev or high-speed rail

service. The greater the population density, the more

highly developed the transit system is likely to be,

which can ease access to and egress from the highspeed line. For example, the ability of the Northeast

Corridor to provide rail service is aided by the substantial local transit systems feeding the trains. Japanese

experience with the Shinkansen, a high-speed railway,

is similar; JR figures for 1982 indicate that the access

to the Shinkansen from home to station is 75 percent

by public transit, 20 percent by taxi, and 5 percent by

automobile. Access from the train to final destination

is 60 percent by public transit, 35 percent by taxi, and

5 percent by auto.17 Comparable figures for New York

and Washington, DC, confirm this pattern. Without

convenient access to stations, some potential ridership

for high-speed intercity rail or maglev is lost.

Other possible markets suggested for maglev are

downtown-to-airport or suburban service. Speed requirements for such a system would not be as high as

for intercity travel, so maglev system characteristics

would be similar to those of conventional commuter

rail lines. At speeds in the range of 50 to 60 mph,

maglev could have some advantages over conventional

rail in that it would probably be quieter and could

require less maintenance.

costs

Guideways and tracks, including power and communication equipment, account for the majority (80

 pp. 31-35.
Chapter 4-Magnetic Levitation and Related Systems “ 7.5

Table 4-4-Comparative Economic Data for 250-mph maglev and

200-mph High-Speed Rail

maglev (EMS)a High-speed rail

Categories (200 seats) (350 seats)

Vehicle cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $7.2 million (2 sections) $24 million

Guideway cost (per mile) . . . . . . . . . $10 million to $40 million: $4 million to $20 million

not firmly established and

highly dependent on route

and guideway parameters

Station costs (3 stations) . . . . . . . . . Comparable for both: $1 3,500/foot of platform; $3,000/parking

space; $8.5 million/station for 500-foot platform and 600

parking spaces

Vehicle operation and

maintenance@ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.028/seat-mile $0.025/seat-mile

Fuel efficiency (seat-mile/gallon) . . . Estimated at 440 540

depends on suspension

KEY: EMS = electromagnetic suspension.

aComparable data for electrodynamic suspension were not available.

bA load factor of 0.65 is assumed-i.e., about 65 percent of the seats are filled.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991.

percent or greater) of initial system costs for maglev

and high-speed rail. Since no high-speed, revenue

maglev systems exist, these costs can only be roughly

estimated. Cost is affected by the degree of urbanization and system size. The major items are design and

engineering studies, right-of-way acquisition, track or

guideway construction, tunneling, station and facilities

construction, purchase of vehicles and signal and control equipment, prerevenue testing, and modifications

to existing roads, bridges, rail lines, or other structures.

Estimates of guideway costs from maglev corridor

studies range from $10.6 million (includes some single

track sections) to $60.9 million per mile. Comparable

cost estimates made by experts for high-speed rail,

based on existing systems, range from $8 million to $32

million per mile of electrified double track, including

land acquisition.

Day-to-day operating costs, which include wages,

fuel, and maintenance, are the second major set of

relevant factors. maglev operating costs are believed

to be similar to current high-speed rail operating expenses because both systems consume similar amounts

of energy, although personnel requirements may differ

between the two systems. Maintenance for maglev depends on the system design and operating practices.

Maintenance cost estimates range from appreciably

lower than high-speed rail (because there are few moving parts) to appreciably higher (guideway tolerance

and equipment needs may require frequent inspection

and ongoing maintenance). See table 4-4 for a summary of cost data for maglev and high-speed rail.

maglev guideway costs could vary greatly, depending on the system design. Because EDS maglev would

use a lighter vehicle and require less precise guideway

tolerances, its construction costs are estimated to be

lower than those for EMS. However, costs depend

greatly on beam properties—such as cross-sectional

area, material, and stiffness—so it is difficult to make

general comparisons between EDS and EMS construction costs. For example, computer-integrated manufacturing can lower fabrication costs for all kinds of

beams and make high EMS tolerance requirements

less of a cost factor. On the other hand, some EDS

concepts suggest box and circular beams, which could

use less material than EMS beams and therefore be less

costly. Since guideway costs make up a major portion

of total system costs, all guideway options should be

investigated. Generally, guideway costs for EDS do

appear to be the same as or lower than for EMS

guideways, all other factors being equal (guideway

electronics, material costs, optimal shapes for

beam) .18

18George ~agnostowulos, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, personal communication, Apr. 29,1991.
76 ● New Ways: tiltrotor Aircraft and Magnetically levitated Vehicles

Regulations and Safety

Because neither maglevnor high-speed rail systems

exist in this country, many issues related to these technologies are difficult to address within the existing

regulatory and safety framework. Such issues include

the institutional framework itself, safety certification,

vehicle standards, guideway and system performance

standards, emergency response procedures, and environmental impacts.

Institutional Framework

Two Federal agencies have jurisdiction over highspeed ground transportation: FRA and the Federal

Highway Administration (FHWA). FHWA’S jurisdiction involves multiple right-of-way usage, including air

rights, and grade crossings.l9 FRA has authority over

all intercity passenger rail transportation and is

charged with assuring the safety of maglev systems in

the United States under the Rail Safety Improvement

Act of 1988. All high-speed guided ground transportation systems (maglev, air-cushioned vehicles) have historically come under FRA authority, even though no

such systems are currently operating in this country.

Recognizing the inadequacy of the present framework

to address maglev or high-speed rail safety issues, FRA

embarked on a multiyear research program in 1989 to

establish the appropriate safety measures that should

be applied to these technologies.

FRA regulations relating to safety tend to be technology and component specific and were adopted from

years of railroad operating experience. Although

maglev systems consist of the same basic system elements as any guided ground or rail transport system,

they use fundamentally different suspension and propulsion technologies. Therefore, most existing railroad regulations are not directly applicable, although

the intent of some regulations is appropriate for

maglev as well as railroads. Besides FRA standards,

other Federal regulations could apply to maglev—

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) windshield

strength standards and UMTA emergency preparedness procedures for rail transit, for example. FRA will

have to modify its regulations and develop new ones to

address maglev-specific safety issues. A number of foreign and other transportation industry safety standards

and guidelines exist that could be applied to the proposed U.S. maglev systems (see box 4-E).20

Safety Certification

The only system for which even preliminary safety

and certification guidelines have been proposed is

Transrapid, which is the only high-speed maglev system advanced enough to be considered for revenue

operation. Responsibility for safety assurance and proposing safety standards during technology development for Transrapid has rested on TUeV Rheinland

(an independent certification authority), acting as an

agent for the government of the Federal Republic of

Germany. FRA will require Transrapid International

to certify that the design, construction, and testing of

the maglev system complies with TUeV’s safety standards and with any construction plans and specifications

submitted to FRA. Although no definite timetable has

been set for issuing new regulations or guidelines,

FRA does intend to establish testing requirements,

including a list of safety-related tests to be performed

by the operator of any maglevsystem prior to commercial operation of the system, and at regular intervals

thereafter. The Orlando line could operate under a

special demonstration waiver, if FRA requirements

have not been issued by the time testing of that system

begins.

At present, TUeV requirements state that the vehicle levitation and guidance functions will not be lost

under any sequence of system failures, and that the

vehicle will maintain its own suspension until it is

brought to a stop by either central control or its own

internal control system. This “safe hovering” concept

requires that the vehicle come to a stop only at guideway locations where auxiliary power and evacuation

means are provided. The vehicle must be able to reach

the next allowable stop location independent of the

wayside power system (i.e., relying solely on momen1923 cm 646.

20Forfurtherinformation ~eU.S. DepafirnentofTmnSP~ation, Fedeml Railroad Administration, sufe ofHigh SpeedMa eticLevitation

Transpotiation Systems: Prel~”muy Safety Reviewofthe TranmapidMagkvSystem, DOTIF’RAJORD-90J09 ( 4ashin ton, DC:

f

f

Ml

ovember 1990 ;

and Robert M. Doer et al., Safety Relevant Observations on the X2000 Train as Develo edfor the Swedish Nationa Railways (Cambridge, “ U.S. Department of Transportation, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, &eeember 1990).
Chapter 4--Magnetic Levitation and Related Systems ● 77

Box 4-E—High-Speed Rail Safety Standards

High-speed steel-wheel-on-rail systems include all the technologies of conventional rail systems, but

because vehicle and track standards for high-speed rail are more stringent, more and newer safety equipment

must be in place. For instance, overhead bridges are commonly equipped with intrusion detection devices to

provide warning if a vehicle breaks through a bridge railing and could fall onto the track area. At European

grade crossings, where some high-speed trains routinely cross highways at 125 miles per hour (mph), on-train

closed-circuit television, gates, and warning sounds are used. All routes on which trains exceed 125 mph have

been grade separated. Other safety and route protection measures for high-speed rail include fencing to protect

against intrusion on the right-of-way, induction loops, interlocking signaling, and speed monitoring. Automatic train detection, which uses the rail as an electrical conductor and senses trains when they close the circuit,

activates warning and control systems to warn motorists—a technique that is standard grade-crossing protection for freight systems in North America.

European high-speed rail uses concrete crossties and elastic fasteners, which provide a more stable

structure than the wood ties and cut spikes traditionally used in North America and are projected to have a

life of 40 to 50 years under light-weight, high-speed trains. Amtrak’s high-speed tracks between Washington,

DC, and New York City use primarily concrete crossties.

Current U.S. rail operating practices, vehicle and track standards, and communication and signal system

practices differ in many respects from pertinent foreign high-speed rail practices recommended by the

International Railway Union (Union Internationale des Chemins de Fer), and from those of foreign railway

companies presently operating trains at speeds of 130 mph or more. Design practices for tracks, roadways,

bridges, and other structures in the United States are standardized in the recommended practices of the

American Railway Engineering Association (AREA) and incorporated in 49 CFR 200-268. The passenger

equipment interchange rules of the Association of American Railroads (AAR) were canceled effective Jan.

1,1984, and republished as recommended industry practices. U.S. industry design standards are embodied in

the recommended practices of AAR, AREA, and Amtrak specifications, but not all are enforced under the

U.S. code.

Federal Railway Administration (FRA) vehicle crashworthiness regulations are based on the assumption

of mixed freight-passenger traffic. They stipulate that vehicles be able to withstand certain compressive loads

without permanent deformation and led to heavier trains than those on European or Japanese high-speed

systems. Foreign high-speed rail systems are generally dedicated to passenger service and assume a greater

need for collision avoidance and energy absorption during collisions. For high-speed power cars in Europe,

the relatively low buff strength is compensated for by the varying use of energy-absorbing, or collapsible,

structures at the cab ends to provide protection to the crew in the event of collisions. This protection is less

than that provided by locomotives and self-propelled cars in North American service. This aspect is partially

offset on high-speed lines, however, by severely limiting access to the tracks to reduce significantly the

probability of collisions.1

Track standards also differ between U.S. and foreign systems. FRA categories track quality in six classes.

Maximum permissible train speed is restricted to a specified limit for each class—the poorest quality track is

class 1 and the best is class 6. Class 6 maximum permissible passenger train speed is 110 mph, and to exceed

this, a railroad must petition FRA for a waiver of the rules. Europeans have established track standards in

some areas for safe speeds of up to about 200 mph.

To provide for maintenance activities and unforeseen contingencies, virtually all lines handling high-speed

trains are equipped with complete high-speed crossover tracks and bi-directional signals. Tunnels and other

problem areas are provided with repeaters or auxiliary antennas to ensure reception and continuous voice

communication.2

IJohn Bachman, BaChman ~otjates, “Federal Law and Regulations Relevant to High Speed Rail Systems,’’ working PaP~r prepared

for The Florida High Speed Rail Transportation Commission, September 1986.

%lansportation Research Board, “Safety Factors Related to 1 Iigh-Speed Rail Passenger SystemsU’ Transpotiation Research Circular

351 (Washington, DC: National Research Council, July 1989).

———. Continued on next Page . —.-—— — ——. -—.
78 . New Ways: Tiltrotor Aircraft and Magnetically Levitated Vehicles

Box 4-E, continued

The primary function of a signal system is to provide a warning early enough to permit a train to stop safely,

and signal spacing is based on calculated stopping distances. Because stopping distance increases proportionally to the square of the speed, high-speed trains would require very long stopping distances, if conventional

braking systems were used. (In an emergency, trains can change speed only, not direction.) After stopping

distances have been determined for a particular type of vehicle’s braking system on a specific line profile,

European regulations add a 10-percent factor of safety to allow for poor adhesion, improperly adjusted brakes,

low air pressure, and other variables. TypicaI American industty practice has been to add 15 to 25 percent as

a safety factor. The automatic train control systems in Europe normally allow for 4 to 8 seconds (similar to

U.S. practice) for the train operator to react and apply the brakes before the system applies an automated

brake. The distance traveled during this reaction time must also be added to the stopping distance to determine

the proper signal spacing (an additional 1,760 feet at 150 mph). In summary, the stopping distances for

European high-speed trains that are used to determine signal spacing are appreciably shorter than those of

typical American practice because of the additional braking capacity of the high-speed trains (dynamic and

track brakes).3

3

1bid.

turn or an onboard energy supply). The vehicle must

also be able to bring itself to a safe stop without any

input or guidance from the central control system.21

maglev Vehicle Safety Standards

maglev vehicles have both a primary and a secondary braking system, which function independently of

each other and provide controlled braking. The primary brake is initiated by the central control system,

which controls the propulsion motor (drive) to reverse

vehicle thrust. Secondary braking is accomplished using longitudinal vehicle magnets to induce eddy currents in the track guide rails. Since the eddy current

brake force decreases sharply with speed, the final

emergency braking requires the vehicle to come to a

stop on landing skids (in the case of Transrapid).22

There is concern that passengers cannot exit the

vehicle safely in an emergency unless it is at a preestablished exit location. Evacuation chutes, like those on

aircraft, and a walkway on the guidcway leading to

evacuation ladders are options that could alleviate this

concern.

The structural design of the maglev vehicle is similar

to that of aircraft, and the vehicle is not designed to

withstand the buff forces railcars are required to withstand. Buff strength is defined as the amount of longitudinal compressive load a ear body can take without

permanent deformation. In-depth evaluation of crashworthiness is essential. FAA window glazing requirements might be considered for use in modifying

23 maglev vehicles might existing FRA regulations.

have pressure-sensitive doors similar to those required

by European high-speed rail standards. U.S. standards

also do not address the impact of lightning on maglev

safety and operation.24

Guideways

A maglev guideway consists of bearings, beams,

footings or foundations, and piers or columns spaced

approximately every 80 feet. The guideway must have

21 Fedcra\ Railroad Administration, op. cit., fOOtnOtC 20, p. 3-5.

2

2

1 bid., p. 3-8.

2349 CFR 223.

24 Federal Rai]road Administration, op. cit., fOOtnOtc 20, p. 7-1.
Chapter 4-Magnetic Levitation and Related Systems ● 79

sufficient stability and stiffness to transmit all static

and dynamic loads to the subgrade while meeting

alignment requirements and a service life commensurate with other system components. The guideway

must withstand many forces and conditions over time:

repeated vehicle loadings, high winds, erosion, oxidation, extreme thermal conditions, and other environmental factors.

Standards

Tolerances for guideways vary according to the

maglev concept, but are typically more precise than

normal construction tolerances for transportation

structures in this country. One of the NMI staff’s challenges is to consider developing structural standards

for guideways and guidelines for how inspection and

maintenance will be performed.26

Eliminating the possibility of or detecting the presence of people or objects on the guideway is crucial if

casualties or collisions are to be avoided. Requirements for an intrusion detection system or a physical

barrier are likely to be necessary to ensure the security

of the guideway, especially in areas where the guideway

is easily accessible.

Right-of-Way

If interstate highway rights-of-way are to be used for

maglev, a number of issues must be addressed, including legality, construction and maintenance on limited

access highways, safety impacts, and environmental

impacts. Federal-aid highways and their associated

rights-of-way are owned, operated, and maintained by

the States, but both State and Federal Governments

must approve their use. FHWA decisions on the use of

Federal-aid rights-of-way are made on a case-by-case

basis; there are no set guidelines. Current Federal law

has a fair market value provision stipulating that a

State must receive reimbursement for use of the rightof-way unless the right-of-way is owned by a publicly

owned transit authority. (This may change; the 1991

surface transportation bill proposed by DOT eliminates the stipulation.) States may, however, charge for

use of their right-of-way, as is commonly done with

utilities.

State and local governments can acquire additional

rights-of-way through the power of eminent domain in

judicial condemnation proceedings. States vary in the

extent to which they permit multiple uses of highway

rights-of-way. Condemnation procedures often strictly

limit the purposes for exercising eminent domain, including restricting use of the condemned land to specific purposes. Issues of whether and how State or local

government rights-of-way can be used must be resolved, especially if maglev is built and operated by the

private sector.

Since allowing the use of a Federal-aid right-of-way

for maglev is a major Federal action requiring FHWA

involvement, the compliance of a maglev system with

provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act

must be satisfied. The level of environmental analysis

and documentation required to ensure compliance depends on the extent of the encroachment and the nature and extent of project impacts. The approval action

may be either a categorical exclusion, an environmental assessment finding of no significant impact, or

a request for an environmental impact statement.27

Safety Impacts

Present highway policy maintains the desirability of

a clear zone, or unobstructed recovery area, in the

median strip and along the edges of highways to allow

room for vehicles leaving the road either to recover

and return to the pavement or to run a reasonable

distance before colliding with an object (see box 4-F).

If maglev systems use elevated guideways in highway

medians, questions must be resolved about the safety

of the piers for vehicles and drivers, the impact of road

vehicles on the piers, and the safety of the maglev

vehicles. The potential for the crash of an 80,000-

pound or heavier truck traveling at 55 mph or more

into a concrete pier must be taken into account in

guideway design if the piers are located near the roadway.

25 For Transrapid these are 0.1 inch per 32.8 feet, since its suspension SyStem reqUir= Close tolerances.

26Federa] Railroad Administration, op. cit., footnote 20, p. 7-1.

27~tter from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) fieCUtive Director to FHWA San Francisco Regional Administrator, Apr. 4,

1990.
80 . New Ways: Tiltrotor Aircraft and Magnetically Levitated Vehicles

Box 4-F—Mukiple Uses of Highway Rights-of-Way

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) has long been active

in matters of highway policy and engineering. AASHTO’S policy on highway rights-of-way states:

A recovery area clear of unyielding objects should be provided. When provision of such an area is

not practicable, any unyielding objects within its limits are to be made breakaway or are to be shielded

by installation of crashworthy barriers or attenuators. Similarly, to the extent practicable, the pier and

abutment supports for another highway or for a railroad overpass structure should be designed to

provide a lateral clearance equal to the clear recovery area. The width of the recovery area is to be

commensurate with the selected design speed and roadside conditions. The width is to be determined

through application of currently accepted procedures. In restrictive areas, it may be necessary to

construct barriers, walls, piers, abutments or other unyielding objects nearer to the traveled way than

the width required for a clear recovery area. The minimum lateral clearance from the edge of the

through lanes to the face of such objects shall be the shoulder width with appropriate crashworthy

barriers and attenuators.l

Although AASHTO authority is not binding, most States and the Federal Highway Administration use

these guidelines, and clear zones and recovery areas must be taken into account in decisions about maglev or

high-speed rail route alignments. The Department of Transportation has recently begun a 6-month study,

entitled “Shared Right of Way and Safety Issues for High Speed Guided Ground Transportation,” which is

examining the operation of maglev and high-speed rail along highway rights-of-way.

IFranCj~B.Franmj~, ~eculjvedjrector,~efican Association of State Hi hwayand Transportation offjcjals, tesljrnony~thmnngs

relating to the development of high-speed transportation corridors, before the ouse Committee on Public Works and Transportation, 5

Subcommittee on Surfaw Transportation, May 3,1991.

Another area of possible conflict is the effect of the where an emergency can occur. In existing European

maglcv or high-sped rail power systems, if any, on high-speed rail systems and Amtrak, train crews are

vehicle and highway electronics. Electronic fuel injection equipment and computers in automobiles and

trucks are increasingly common. Also, sensor and communication technologies related to inlclligcnt vehicle/highway systems must be taken into account in

maglev system analyses.m F~dcral Communimtions

Commission requirements related to electromagnetic

cmissions must be considered.

Emergency Procedures

Provisions must be made to allow passengers and

cmployccs to leave the vchiclc and allow cmcrgcnq

response personnel to enter the vchiclc at any locat ion

—

instructed and given practical training in routine and

cmcrgcncy public address system announcements as

well as hands-on practice to protect, evacuate, and

rescue passengers. This type of training is also providtxl by the railroad and car builders to fire departments and other cmcrgency organizations located

along the routes. Some railroads furnish detailed local

maps to regional fire and rescue groups to expedite

their access to train accident sites.29 At presen~ FRA

has no guidelines, regulations, or standards addressing this issue. An emergency equipment and facilities

response plan that addresses emergency response

training and preparedness is needed.

28Francjs ~. ~ranc.)j~, ~xccutive d jrcctor, American ~ssociati[)n of State I lighway and Transportation officials, testimony at heafings relating

to the development of high-speed transportation corridors, before the I louse (’ommittcc on Public Works and Transportation, Subcommittee

on Surface Transportation, May 3, 1990.

29’t ransporta

tion Research Board, “Safety l~actors Related to I Iigh-Speed Rail Passenger systems, “ Irampotiation Research Circular 351

(Washington, DC: National Research C{luncil, .lLIly 1989).
Chapter 4+Magnetic Levitation and Related Systems ● 8/

Photo credit: SCNF

The Train a Grand Vitesse (TGV) currently operates at high speeds along 1,100 miles of track in France.

Health and Environmental Issues

maglev and high-speed rail systems face a number

of potential health and environmental hurdles affecting their public acceptability, including electromagnetic fields and noise. Resolution of these issues is just

as important as technical performance.

Electromagnetic Fields

One of maglev’s consistent selling points has been

its power source. Electrical power, the reasoning goes,

provides a clean, efficient, and safe energy source. But

as attention has focused recently on the possible harmful effects of EMFs, this selling point for maglev could

turn out to be a major roadblock, depending on which

suspension technology is used. The fields encountered

in passenger cabins and along the wayside of an EMS

system are on the same order of magnitude as ambient

Earth levels and about the same as or below the field

levels associated with common household appliances,

such as microwave ovens, refrigerators, and hair dryers. With current EDS designs, however, DC magnetic

field levels can significantly exceed acceptable limits,

and measures will have to be taken to reduce these

levels or to shield passengers and bystanders from their

effects. In addition, existing Department of Health and

Human Services rules regarding electromagnetic emissions must be considered in any maglevsystem. Appendix A describes what is currently known about EMF

levels and their impacts on human health.

Air Quality and Noise

Neither maglev nor high-speed rail systems depend

on petroleum for power and consequently do not de297-906 - 91 - 4 : 3
82 . New Ways: Tiltrotor Aircraft and Magnetically Levitated Vehicles

grade air quality where the vehicles operate. Moreover,

they are projected to be four or more times as energy

efficient as wide-body airliners.30 Air pollution in the

form of carbon dioxide emissions generally depends on

power requirements. For electrified systems such as

maglev, these emissions would have point sources

rather than mobile sources and would probably not

occur in areas where air quality is a concern.

maglev and high-speed rail produce noise levels

that increase with speed. Aerodynamic factors are the

principal noise contributors for maglev. High-speed

rail noise is affected by those factors plus wheel/rail

interaction, the propulsion system, and a high-speed

pantograph-catenary interaction.31 Above about 150

mph, aerodynamic noise exceeds other sources of noise

for high-speed rail. At speeds in this range and above,

the vehicle can be heard many hundreds of feet from

the right-of-way, and in populated areas, a reduction

in speed for noise reasons alone (accompanied by

sound barriers or other measures) may be necessary.

At speeds above 170 mph, the TGV produces noise

levels in the 90- to 100-decibel (dB) range.32 By comparison, noise from a heavy truck traveling on the

highway measures about 90 dB, while that from a jet

takeoff measures 105 dB 2,000 feet away from the

source. Table 4-5 summarizes the noise impacts of

various transportation modes. Federal agencies, including DOT, EPA and the Department of Housing

and Urban Development, are involved in regulating

noise impact. In addition, many municipalities have

noise ordinances that must be complied with during

construction and operation.

Institutional and Financing Issues

No matter how developed the technology, many

institutional issues surround the approval, construction, and operation of new high-speed ground transportation systems, including who will operate them, on

whose land they will be built, and who will finance

them. The choice of potential operators, which deTable 4-5-Noise Characteristics of Transportation

and Other Activities

Activity Sound level in decibels

Whispering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Light auto traffic at 100 ft . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Conversational speech . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Vacuum cleaner at 10 ft. . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Freight train at 50 ft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Shinkansen at 150 mph at 82 ft..... 80

Alarm clock at 2 ft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Riding inside a city bus . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Trensrapid at 185 mph at 82 ft...... 84

Heavy truck at 50 ft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

TGV at 185 mph at 82 ft.. . . . . . . . . . . 91

Jet takeoff at 2,000 ft. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

Jet takeoff at 200 ft. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

Threshold of physical pain . . . . . . . . . . . 130

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991, based on U.S. General

Accounting Office data.

pends on who owns the system and right-of-way, includes airlines, public transportation authorities, railroads, or other private providers. Careful

consideration must be given to where these new systems are built, who will operate them, and whether

more than one operator can use the same guideway or

right-of-way.

Community Acceptance

Objections on grounds of noise, EMFs, traffic congestion near new station sites (particularly in urban

areas), and aesthetics are likely to be the major obstacles to gaining community acceptance. Intense public

education, combined with adequate environmental protections, will be required before any system gains widespread popular support. Even with privately owned

rights-of-way, which may not require as much official

review, States would probably not proceed without full

environmental compliance. Efforts to shorten the environmental impact assessment process could create

public distrust, as was the case in the Los Angeles-San

Diego project sponsored by the American High Speed

Rail Corp.

MU.S, Department of Transportation, Volpe National Transportation SystemS Gnter, “Innovative Technology for Intercity Passenger

Systems,” unpublished draft report, Aug. 24,1990, p. 37.

31A ~tena~ is an overhead wire from which electrical current is drawn. A pantograph draws current from the catenary.

32The (_Jnadian Institute of Guided Ground Transport, Queen’s unive~ity at ~ngston, Ontario, “characterization of High-Speed Ground

Trans ortation Technology Alternatives for U.S. Applications and Discussion of Key Issues and Questions,’’ unpublished report, Nov. 28,1990,

p. 5-1 .!
Chapter Magnetic Levitation and Related Systems ● 83

Proposals calling for the construction of entirely

new rights-of-way will require public agreement on

land-use questions. Permission to use or buy a rightof-way in the United States would have to be sought

from any number of organizations that could include

States, municipalities, transit properties, airports,

Amtrak, freight and commuter railroads, toll and turnpike authorities, utilities, and private citizens and organizations. The support for maglev or high-speed rail

by local governments, institutions, environmentalists,

and citizen groups will be influenced by projections of

demand for the service, by the amount of urban land

and areas of natural beauty through which the line

must travel, and by the perceived need to reduce congestion elsewhere. Ironically the areas where maglev

or high-speed rail are most likely to be successful are

so densely populated that establishing new high-speed

lines is difficult and costly. In constructing the TGV,

high capital costs and environmental opposition were

avoided by using existing, state-owned rights-of-way

into and out of Paris. The line between Paris and Lyon

encountered relatively little opposition because of the

low population density between the cities.

If government subsidies are used to finance a new

system, political disputes may occur over which areas

should host it and what the appropriate site selection

criteria would be. Local government support may well

depend on whether a local stop is included in the new

route. If a number of intermediate stops are made to

satisfy local interests, travel time between large urban

centers would increase, and the new system would be

less competitive with other modes.

Intergovernmental and Financing Issues

Governments have played a strong role in transportation infrastructure development because relying on

private funding is often not feasible (see chapter 2).

Government support has been essential to the development of new transportation technologies—Germany has invested around $1 billion in the Transrapid;

Japan is planning to spend $3 billion over the next

decade on maglev development and testing; the TGV

and Shinkansen systems were supported significantly

by their respective national governments or railroads;

the United States spent approximately $15 million on

the High Speed Ground Transportation program from

1965 to 1975, roughly $2.3 million of which went toward maglev research.

Even if foreign-developed vehicle technologies are

used, financing for construction of new infrastructure

remains a huge obstacle. Financing for high-speed rail

projects in this country was encouraged by a Federal

law enacted in 1988 exempting from Federal income

tax those revenues received on bonds issued for highspeed, intercity rail facilities. Choice of operator will

affect labor regulations and costs and the amount of

competition encountered from other modes. It is unclear, for example, how existing railroad labor statutes

will apply to high-speed rail or maglev. Finally, acquiring the right-of-way, particularly in congested corridors, could prove to be a major obstacle.

Of the many high-speed ground transportation corridors that have been proposed, a few (Los AngelesSan Diego, Miami-Tampa-Orlando) have reached the

stage where project financing has been seriously considered. Although most States have established policies that any high-speed rail or maglev project must be

privately funded, no private entity has ever expressed

willingness to bear the full costs of any proposed system. All projects have proceeded from assumptions

(sometimes unstated) that the public sector will facilitate or financially support such activities as land acquisition for right-of-way, guideway or track construction,

station construction, environmental mitigation, grade

separation, and so forth.

Funding for major transportation projects typically

comes from taxes or passenger fares, regardless of

whether the project is publicly or privately financed.

Mechanisms suggested for aiding high-speed rail/

maglev projects include sales taxes, motor vehicle fuel

tax revenues, bond issues, station development costsharing, developer fees, “capturing” increases in value

of the land surrounding stations, tax-free status for

project bonds, exemption or special status regarding

environmental approval and fees, Federal loan and

investment guarantees, special taxes, and diversion of

funds from other public sources. Timely payment of

interest during construction also appears to be very

important in determining project profitability.

Other financing options include establishment of

special taxing districts to allow projects to be financed

by property taxes on local businesses, benefit assessments, tax increment financing, development impact

fees, equipment leasing, and joint public-private development. DOT has proposed legislation permitting

States to provide available highway rights-of-way at
84 . New Ways: Ti/trotor Aircraft and Magnetically levitated Vehicles

little or no cost to high-speed rail projects, including

maglev. The current provisions for market-rate compensation of highway rights-of-way drive up the costs

of high-speed rail and maglev projects, although there

are good policy reasons, in many cases, for encouraging

the co-location of transportation facilities. Another

proposal under consideration would permit States to

use Federal-aid highway funds to make highway facility

adjustments to accommodate other modes, including

high-speed rail and maglev. Such improvements might

include alignment modifications, fencing, drainage,

structural work, grade crossing elimination, and construction of modal separation barriers.33

Conclusions

maglev and high-speed rail systems show considerable technical promise as high-volume, intercity passenger modes in selected corridors up to about 500

miles, However, any system would require substantial

infrastructure investment initially, although highspeed rail and probably maglev systems have low operating costs relative to other modes. maglev requires

further development and local demonstration before

it could enter intercity service in this country. Intercity

high-speed rail systems are already highly developed

and operating in Europe and Japan.

Economics and Market Potential

U.S. demographics and geography and the construction costs of implementing maglev or high-speed rail

raise difficult financial and policy issues which must be

addressed before any intercity system can go forward.

Only a few U.S. corridors have population and travel

densities comparable to the European and Japanese

corridors currently enjoying high ridership. Thorough,

independent market research, including analyses of

current door-to-door travel trends, intermodal connections, modal preferences, and modal competition,

must be undertaken to assess the potential ridership

and benefits of new maglev or high-speed rail connections and determine which corridors are most likely to

benefit from high-speed ground service.

Guideways and Right-of-Way

Right-of-way alignment must include long, straight

sections or large-radius curves if maglev vehicles or

high-speed trains are to achieve average travel speeds

approaching maximum vehicle speeds. Existing interstate rights-of-way, which were designed for 70 mph,

are not adequate for current maglev or high-speed rail

concepts to achieve sustained high (150 mph+) speeds

in many areas. Acquiring rights-of-way in all corridors

where maglev or high-speed rail could be used effectively would be both difficult and costly.

Guideway design and construction represent the

majority of total system cost. Further work is needed

in developing optimal guideway shapes that make

most efficient use of material and yet meet requirements for tolerance and low maintenance. Concepts

that employ banking of the track or guideway as well

as tilt of the vehicle could enable higher speeds

through curves while still maintaining high passenger

comfort levels. Construction and fabrication methods

that minimize onsite time and labor requirements and

thereby reduce cost are also needed.

Research and Development

The National maglev Initiative marks renewed U.S.

interest in maglev and will provide useful input regarding how or whether to pursue this technology. While

results from the NMI are not yet in, it is clear that

several technical issues need further work before

maglev systems can begin revenue service.

EMF health effects are still unknown, but exposure

levels from EMS maglev and high-speed rail are believed to be on the same order as those emanating from

common appliances. EDS maglev produces higher DC

magnetic fields, however, and will require design

strategies and magnetic shielding for minimizing passenger exposure.

Further development needs for EDS maglev include: negotiating curves while maintaining adequate

stability, cooling the superconducting magnets, limiting EMF in the passenger compartment, and cost re33E]aine L. Chao, de uty secreta~ of transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation, remarks at Washington High Speed Rail Forum,

Washington, DC, Nov. ,1990. f
ductions for superconducting magnets and magnetic

shielding. High-speed maglev concepts that incorporate many branch lines will require further development of switching technology. High-speed rail R&D

issues include braking capabilities, wheel/rail dynamics, and economically acceptable techniques for collecting current at speeds over about 200 mph.

Institutional Issues

Intergovernmental Arrangements

Should the decision be taken to develop maglev

technology, careful consideration must be given to

how the development should proceed and who should

undertake it. Different areas of technical expertise

reside in various government agencies, private firms,

and universities. A lead organization must be chosen

or created to coordinate research on areas critical to

maglev systems, ensure compatibility between system

components, and, when appropriate, develop a strategy for testing prototypes (including selection of test

sites). At some point, a decision may have to be made

regarding suspension and guideway configurations,

since different maglev designs are mutually incompatible for network operations. It is estimated that fullscale maglev development costs would range from a

minimum of $750 million to somewhat over $1 billion,

most of which would go toward prototype and test

facility design and construction.

Safety and Certification

Operational safety features of existing maglev prototypes as well as the zero-fatality rate of existing

high-speed rail systems indicate that these technologies could potentially operate more safely than all

other passenger modes. However, the current U.S.

safety and regulatory framework for railroads cannot

be directly applied to maglev and high-speed rail, and

needs major reformulation. FRA must ensure that it

has sufficient technical and administrative expertise

for this task At present, for example, track standards

for steel-wheel technology cover only speeds up to 110

mph. Current FRA and Association of American Railroads practices governing traffic control, track stand-
86 ● New Ways: Tiltrotor Aircraft and Magnetically Levitated Vehicles

ards, and crashworthiness are based on the assumption

of mixed passenger and freight traffic. Dedicated

rights-of-way for passenger traffic, which are practically a necessity for high-speed systems, require a rethinking of current regulations. A new total system

safety approach must be developed for high-speed rail

and maglev. A separate safety evaluation process for

different types of vehicles (transit mixed passenger/freight, dedicated, passenger-only high-speed

rail), somewhat like the case in aviation, may be warranted.

No matter how developed the technology, maglev

or high-speed rail systems must gain public acceptance

and be publicly financed in order to be built. Atypical

line could fall under many different State and local

jurisdictions, complicating the regulatory and finance

picture considerably. Siting the right-of-way, noise,

and electromagnetic fields are the factors likely to

cause the greatest concern, and each must be effectively mitigated if new systems are to stand any chance

of being built. Technology demonstration and validation will be crucial in gaining public acceptance of a

new system. Since private backing for new systems has

been inadequate to cover initial costs fully, some combination of financial and institutional public support

will be necessary for capital costs. Public sector support is essential if substantial R&D is to be conducted

domestically. 34

~For further info~ation, see Arthur D. Little, Inc., An Industry Perspective on Magkv, DOT/FRA/ORD-90/07 (Washington, Dc: U.S.

Department of Transportation, June 1990).
CHAPTER 5

Federal Policy Issues for

maglev and tiltrotor
CONTENTS

Page

Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Options for Research and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

tiltrotor Development Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

maglev Development Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Options for Operational Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Issues for Implementing Alternative Transportation Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95

tiltrotor Operating System Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

maglev Operating System Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98

Tables

Table Page

5-1. Steps Still Needed for Operational maglev or tiltrotor System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

5-2. Intercity Transportation Technology Comparisons for the Northeast Corridor (NEC) ..96
CHAPTER 5

Federal Policy Issues for maglev and tiltrotor

Although new technologies, including magnetically

levitated (maglev) vehicles and tiltrotor aircraft, are

being developed that could help make our transportation system work better, these new technologies alone

will not resolve current congestion and environmental

difficulties. Transportation problems are due more to

investment, land-use, and management policies and

practices than to inadequate technologies,l and any

technology change must be accompanied by appropriate policy changes, or the benefits may not be realized. 2

Furthermore, changes by any group of users, such as

airlines or automobile commuters, to optimize their

operations within a new policy and technology framework are difficult to forecast but likely to alter the

long-term impacts of technology-based standards and

policies. 3

This study outlines the roles that maglev, tiltrotor,

and other advanced technologies could play in improving intercity transportation. Tough decisions about

complicated policy and transportation management

issues must be made before development and operation of the technologies can proceed on a large scale in

the United States. Moreover, a significant realizable

market for these systems does not now exist domestically. Appendix B summarizes general conclusions on

transportation system management, research, and

technology from a recent OTA study. This chapter

addresses the specific issues that affect the viability of

tiltrotor and maglev.

Findings

-- maglev and tiltrotor concepts are technically feasible. Prototype vehicles have operated in the

United States or abroad for more than a decade.

Once installed, these new modes could operate

at speeds that would provide door-to-door trip

times competitive with conventional air trans-

●

●

port at distances up to 500 miles. maglevs and

tiltrotors could avoid airport ground access and

runway delays and offer terminals closer to population or industrial centers. If the maglev or tiltrotor vehicles depart as frequently as airliners,

they could save time compared with travel by

conventional air on a particular route. Developing tiltrotor or next-generation maglev systems

to the point of being commercially viable would

cost billions of dollars.

Neither technology has been demonstrated as

practical for intercity passenger service and the

realizable market for tiltrotor or maglevtechnologies is subject to a variety of factors whose

impacts are difficult to predict. The busiest air

travel routes are the primary target markets cited

by both maglev and tiltrotor proponents. However, potential entrepreneurs will face significant

community and institutional barriers (see table

5-1) to establishing new transportation systems,

and such issues are time-consuming and potentially costly to resolve. Moreover, if an intercity

maglev, tiltrotor, or high-speed rail system is put

into place, their operators will have to compete

with the marketing power and pricing flexibility

of the large airlines.

Furthermore, maglev and tiltrotor systems will

be expensive to establish—tiltrotors would cost

more per seat to purchase and operate than conventional airplanes, and maglev routes would

need 3 to 5 million passengers per year just to

cover a 20-year amortization cost of the guideway

at typical air travel fares. Thus, time-sensitive

service, such as business travel, is likely to be the

initial market niche for maglev and tiltrotor, if

most of the capital and operating costs are to be

covered by ticket sales. It is not clear that either

1 U.S. ~ngr~, office of Technology Assessment, Delivering the Goo~: Public Works Technologies, Managemerq and Financing

OTA-SET-477 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Oftiee, April 1991), p. 129.

2 Ibid., p. 33.

3 Ibid.

-89-
90 ● New Ways: Tiltrotor Aircraft and Magnetically Levitated Vehicles

Table 5-l-Steps Still Needed for Operational maglev or tiltrotor System

Commercial tiltrotor Maglev

Technology development . . Military V-22 program engineering and operating - “ - “

. . . . . . .

experience; noise, flight path, and cockpit

research.

Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conveniently located vertiports; terminal

airspace, routes, and procedures; air traffic

control (ATC) and navigation facilities.

Debate revolves around whetter to develop new

U.S. designs or develop or buy foreign

concepts. low-cost guideways and reliable

switches are desirable.

Available and affordable rights-of-way; dedicated

guideways, bridges, grade separations,

electrification, communication and control

systems, and stations.

Technology and safety

demonstration . . . . . . . . . . . . ATC compatibility; community noise levels;

economic data; airline and passenger

acceptance.

Federal regulatory

structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mostly exists--specific airworthiness and

operating standards for tiltrotors are being

developed. Initial vertiport standards have

been published.

Legal and environmental

concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Noise standards; local zoning.

Financing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Under existing policies, Federal support for

infrastructure possible but not for aircraft

development.

Competitive framework . . . . . . Airline cooperation is essential for tiltrotors to

operate. Individual airlines have wellestablished operations in highly competitive

short haul markets and see mostly risks and

no additional profits in employing tiltrotors.

The higher direct operating rests of tiltrotor

service might have to be underwritten if

tiltrotors are to provide public benefits of

expanded airport capacity and reduced

Construction methods; construction, operating,

and maintenance cost data; community and

passenger acceptance.

Not yet developed-some maglev design and

performance characteristics conflict with

current Federal Highway Administration (FRA)

regulations. FRA is assessing the applicability

of current statutes and regulations to the

Orlando maglev and developing waivers,

guidelines, and possibly new regulations for

the. project. The Orlando project will be the

basis for future maglev regulations.

Noise during very high speeds; right-of-way

agreements; possible health effects of

electromagnetic fields.

No Federal policy for funding maglev or highspeed rail technology development or

infrastructure.

Airline marketing power and large, established

route structure could be strong assets or

formidable opponents to intercity maglev.

Amtrak has operating authority for most routes

proposed for passenger-carrying maglev or

high-speed rail.

delays and congestion.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991.

●

of these types of services will provide enough

relief for intercity congestion and delays to serve

as a cost-effective investment for Federal transportation dollars. However, without some public

willingness to finance infrastructure, neither

technology will be realized as an option. ●

tiltrotor and maglev could enhance other transport operations, in addition to intercity commercial travel, and might warrant Federal support.

While tiltrotor has been developed primarily for

military missions, it might also fill other public

roles, such as emergency evacuation, or serve

industry needs, such as offshore oil rig support.

maglev carries passengers on short, low-speed

transit lines in Germany and England, and regional transit or commuter service might be feasible if maglev’s potential for low maintenance

costs is achieved.

Congress will need to clarify objectives for funding these technologies. Research, development,

and demonstration investments for maglev and

tiltrotor technology could be considered to support long-term strategic purposes, such as technology leadership and future mobility. tiltrotor,

maglev, or other new transportation technologies could be cost-effective in certain locations

if conventional options become insufficient or

too expensive to meet future transportation
Chapter 5--Federal Policy Issues@ maglev and tiltrotor . 91

●

●

●

needs. How maglev or tiltrotor development

would affect the domestic economy or balance of

trade depends on a variety of factors.

Some form of Federal financing will be required

if commercial maglev or tiltrotor technologies

are to be developed by U.S. industry in the next

decade. Foreign high-speed rail technology is

available now for U.S. markets, and German

maglev will be ready by late 1992. Public support

for infrastructure—rights-of-way for maglev and

specific air traffic control (ATC) and landing

facilities for tiltrotor—would also be necessary,

regardless of who advances and sells the technology.

Developing maglev or tiltrotor technology and

establishing operating systems in the next 10 to

15 years to help improve conventional transportation modes will need complementary Federal

environmental, intermodal, and transportation

management policies. Most forecasts project

that passenger travel will continue to grow during the next 20 years, although future congestion

levels are difficult to assess. For example, airline

scheduling strategies rather than passenger demand determine how crowded the runways at

most hub airports become. If congestion increases, tiltrotor, maglev, and other alternative

transportation modes might help relieve some

pressure on highways and airports. However, under current market conditions and policies, too

few passengers would switch to these new modes

to effect much change in automobile or airline

operations. Moreover, shifting traffic from highways or runways that are clogged is usually a

temporary solution, since other vehicles quickly

move into any newly created openings. Executive

branch agencies will face additional safety, environmental, and economic oversight and regulatory responsibilities that must be supported if

maglev, tiltrotor, or other comparable systems

are placed in service.

If the Department of Defense (DOD) V-22 Osprey

program is continued, enough engineering and

operational experience might be gained for industry and investors to make firm decisions,

either pro or con, regarding commercial tiltrotor

production. Industry observers believe that the

V-22 design is unacceptable for most commercial

transport applications, owing to economic and

civil performance penalties inherent in meeting

military requirements, although some V-22

structural and propulsion designs and components might be directly transferable to a commercial tiltrotor. Because it has worked closely with

DOD to collect data from the V-22 flight test

program, the Federal Aviation Administration

(FM) is well positioned to certify a V-22 type of

aircraft for civilian test and demonstration operations by late 1995, if a sponsor requests it.

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)

has just begun developing a regulatory framework for maglev. That agency will be especially

challenged by the decision to place maglev in

service in Orlando, Florida, by the summer of

1995. FRA’s technical and regulatory framework

for maglev and other high-speed systems needs

bolstering, regardless of where the technology is

developed. Ensuring the safety of high-performance and technologically complex maglev systems

may require more active oversight procedures,

including a system safety approach for approving

designs and Federal licensing of operating companies and personnel. In the interim, FRA must

continue collecting and analyzing data from

foreign high-speed rail and maglev operations.

Additionally, FRA’s safety research and development (R&D) resources, strained by the workload of the current National maglev Initiative

(NMI), will have to be strengthened to monitor

and participate effectively in a full-scale maglev

technology development program and in the implementation of high-speed rail systems now being considered by various States.

Options for Research and Development

The U.S. military is testing tiltrotor aircraft, Japan

and Germany are developing maglev technologies, and

a Japanese company plans to produce small tiltwing4

aircraft by 1997. These designs would be costly to

4 me similanti= and differen~ between tiltwings and tiltrotors are discussed in ch. 3.
92 “ New Ways: Tiltrotor Aircraft and Magnetically levitated Vehicles

establish and unlikely to penetrate the intercity passenger markets in the United States. Other concepts

might prove more cost-effective. However, these or

similar transportation technologies will likely be used

on a small scale within the United States during the

next 10 years, and the Federal oversight agencies will

have to be prepared to evaluate such systems. At issue

is the Federal role in fostering maglev and tiltrotor

technologies for commercial applications and ensuring the safety of systems proposed for use in the United

States.

Both maglev and tiltrotor could be included in a

comprehensive Department of Transportation (DOT)

research program into technological and system solutions to mobility problems. Maintaining a broad Federal transportation research base in these and other

promising technologies, along with extensive data on

passenger travel patterns, would assist in deciding on

and gearing up for a larger scale development effort if

conditions warrant it.

Foreign competitiveness implications of maglev

and tiltrotor have been raised repeatedly in testimony

to Congress, and Congress may consider making national leadership in either of these technologies an

explicit goal. (The international context of such a technology policy goes beyond the scope of this study.) The

United States has a significant worldwide lead in tiltrotor technology, and military, commercial, and public

service applications have been identified for highspeed vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) aircraft.

Much tiltrotor technology development, engineering,

and flight testing is directly transferable across the

tiltrotor mission concepts, and other countries are

seriously considering tiltrotor (or similar technology)

programs. The extent of a global market is uncertain,

but niche markets appear to exist. Therefore, the

United States could have a favorable balance of trade

in this product class if it is brought to market soon.

Things are different for maglev. Technology leadership is also an issue, but in this case Germany and

Japan have the lead. German maglev could carry revenue passengers in the United States by 1995, and Japan

has committed to spending $3 billion over the next

decade to develop and test maglev technology. The

world market for U.S.-produced maglev is uncertain.

Most countries that could consider investing in maglev

systems in the next two decades-Western European

nations and Japan—have strong commitments to

home-grown maglev and high-speed rail technologies.

Even Germany, which invested substantial public

funds to develop maglev, is implementing high-speed

rail, not maglev. However, if enough Federal support

is available to develop one, a U.S. maglev system could

compete for these markets over the long term or in

regions elsewhere in the world.

If Congress wishes to regard the trade balance as an

issue affecting maglev, the complexities need to be

closely examined. The largest component of a maglev

is infrastructure-rights-of-way, guideways, and stations-and infrastructure is generally not exportable.

Regardless of where the technology originates, 75 to

90 percent of the expenditures would go to construction and engineering firms that put the maglev infrastructure in place. U.S. firms could compete for this

construction in foreign countries, but a government

often gives preference to domestic firms. In addition,

any government is likely to prefer vehicles to be produced domestically if a large enough market exists.

tiltrotor Development Priorities

Policies and an institutional framework currently

exist for Federal R&D for aviation, and a dedicated

funding source, the Aviation Trust Fund, exists to

support technology and infrastructure development to

expand system capacity. Technologies that enhance

safety and community acceptance are fundamental

needs of all civilian VTOL aircraft-helicopters, tiltrotors, or others—and developing such technologies

for aircraft and infrastructure falls within the purview

of existing National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and FAA programs. However, substantial Federal funding for developing and testing

tiltrotor technology would be necessary, on the order

of $250 million over a 3-year period, if U.S. industry

were to decide in the near future to produce commercial vehicles. Congressional approval would also be

required. If Federal efforts in civil tiltrotor technology

development are to continue or increase, the priorities

are:

Continue Vertical Flight Research at NASA and

FAA Including Certification and Regulatory Support-NASA and FAA conduct about $27 million

annually in research activities, mostly advancing civilian and military helicopter operations. About $5 million goes specifically to tiltrotor investigations. FAA

is also collecting engineering and test data from the

V-22 flight test program, which will assist future certification work for tiltrotors and other advanced VTOL
Chapter S-Federal Policy Issues for Maglev and tiltrotor ● 93

concepts. Because of the potential quantum jump in

performance over conventional helicopters, consideration might be given to increasing the percentage of

vertical flight research funds devoted to high-speed

VTOL concepts.

Step Up Work on Vertical Flight Research To Address Issues Affecting Public Acceptance-Congress

could encourage FAA and NASA to conduct R&D

that would make VTOL aircraft and infrastructure

more attractive to communities and airlines. The most

important program goals are to improve rotor designs

to reduce noise, ensure appropriate cockpit equipment and procedures, and to develop flight tests and

any necessary equipment to permit the steep flight

paths to and from landing facilities. Closer coordination than -has been customary would be required

between NASA and FAA if such programs were instituted. One way to effect this would be to establish an

advisory committee with an explicit charter to integrate the agencies’ efforts. Such a committee could also

be empowered to help set priorities for other current

vertical flight R&D programs.

Test and Demonstrate tiltrotors in Civilian Operations—Tests and evaluations of tiltrotors in civilian/commercial operations, which would also aid in

gaining community and airline acceptance and in verifying infrastructure requirements, will be essential

before manufacturers will commit to commercial tiltrotor production. At a minimum, Federal support for

tiltrotor demonstrations would include standard regulatory and ATC functions and providing XV-15 and

V-22 tiltrotorvehicles. Operational demonstrations of

civil aircraft straddle the line between long-term technology development and near-term commercial goals—

the full Federal role is unclear. Unless Congress

commits to and funds a national civil tiltrotor program,

operational testing might be accomplished at best

gradually with funding out of NASA and FAA vertical

flight R&D budgets. However, without an established

funding profile, larger tasks, such as quiet rotor design

and flight validation, will not be taken on. An intensive

3-year tiltrotor research and demonstration program,

as described in the NASA/FAA Civil tiltrotor Missions and Applications study,5 would cost, on an annual basis, two or three times the amount currently

allocated for all NASA and FAA vertical flight programs, or $60 million to $90 million per year.

maglev Development Priorities

maglev, high-speed rail, and other advanced surface

transportation modes need to be considered together

and in conjunction with possible implementation options. Since high-speed rail is a fairly mature technology and operational overseas, it is unclear that an

economic advantage would come from Federal investment in developing new steel-wheel technologies.

However, technology and infrastructure research efforts to aid in establishing new routes in the United

States would have immediate impact, since high-speed

rail vehicles are available now.

If its promise is realized, maglev will travel faster

and cost less to maintain than high-speed rail. Congress supported the National maglev Initiative, a 2-

year, $25-million program to evaluate the role maglev

can play in the U.S. transportation system and to recommend further actions regarding R&D for a U.S.

maglev system. The three-agency NMI team—DOT,

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Department of Energy —is to report its findings in late 1992.

The Transportation Research Board is investigating

possible applications of high-speed surface transportation systems in the United States and expects to

release its results this year. If Federal efforts in maglev

technology development are to continue or increase,

the priorities are:

Complete the National maglev Initiative—Fund

the program through its scheduled conclusion at the

end of fiscal year 1992. Since the results of the NMI

study will not be available for fiscal year 1993 transportation appropriations deliberations, Congress may wish

to provide follow-on funding for the transition year for

the most promising Federal efforts as it decides the

near-term Federal role in maglev technology development. The results of NMI investigations will help in

evaluating foreign maglev performance and are essential for deciding whether or not to commit major public

funds for a U.S. maglev program.

5 Boeing Gmmercial Airplane Group et al., Civil tiltrotorMi.xrions andApplications Phase IL 17te CommercialPassengerMarke~ prepared

for National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Federal Aviation Administration, draft final report, NASA CR 177S76 (Seattle, WA

February 1991), ch. 7.
94 . New ways: Tiltrotor Aircraft and Magnetically levitated Vehicles

Address maglev, High-Speed Rail, and Similar Systems in Related R&D Programs When Possible—Research efforts to reduce the costs of materials and

construction and limit the environmental effects of

major infrastructure projects are critical to the future

of new ground transportation systems in the United

States. Research into communication and automation

technologies may be relevant for maglev and highspeed rail operations, and understanding the health

effects of electromagnetic fields is important for the

future of all electrically powered transportation systems. Specific technology needs differ markedly between the two basic types of maglev and between them

and high-speed rail.

Bolster FRA Regulatory Framework—Regardless

of near-term decisions on U.S. maglev programs, an

appropriate Federal regulatory framework will be essential for overseeing the safety of maglev and similar

technologies. FRA has traditionally depended on industry to develop design and operating standards for

rail. Congress may wish to encourage FRA to evolve

new regulatory oversight policies and R&D programs

to support this development over the long term and to

develop institutional expertise to address maglev technologies. This is a top priority, since suitable regulations, operating standards, and safety R&D programs

for maglev and high-speed rail do not presently exist

at FRA. Technical and regulatory expertise at the Urban ‘Mass Transportation Administration, the Volpe

National Transportation Systems Center, and FAA

could assist FRA, and some standards and regulations

already in place in other countries might be utilized.

Establish an Institutional Framework for maglev

Development— If Congress decides to fund further

maglev technology investigations, it must select a Federal agency to lead the effort. Unlike aviation, for

which NASA and FAA have well-established roles and

funding for technology research, the home for maglev

research is not as clear. The Rail Safety Improvement

Act of 1988 designates FRA as the lead agency for

maglev, but R&D funding within FRA has dwindled in

the past decade and the agency would be hard-pressed

to undertake a large-scale maglev development program in the near future.

For the ongoing NMI, each of the three member

agencies has brought unique and valuable perspectives

to the program. This partnership will be useful if Congress decides to continue low-level investigations without committing to a major technology development

effort. But a large-scale maglev development program

might call for a different institutional structure. Because maglev has applications and consequences

across transportation modes (urban and airport transit, for example), DOT is a logical choice for Congress

to designate to administer maglev development.

Test and Demonstrate maglev Technology—

maglev vehicles and guideways, unlike the vehicles and

infrastructure in other transportation modes, are intrinsically linked. For example, the German and Japanese prototype maglev vehicles can operate only on

their own unique infrastructure.

Without a “standard” maglev guideway, technology

testing will require separate facilities for each maglev

configuration considered. Any research program, such

as a post-NMI effort, must be crafted carefully so that

a range of components and concepts can be studied at

modest expense through the prototype stage, where

significant further investment driven by infrastructure

needs would be necessary to test and demonstrate

vehicle operations. Moreover, because of the expense

involved, large-scale testing and demonstration of U.S.

maglev technology might have to be linked to a commitment to implement an operational system.

Options for Operational Implementation

Establishing new transportation systems is fundamentally a process of overcoming a series of barriers.

Success may not depend on the inherent strength of a

specific technology, or even the particular mode.

Choices depend on public objectives and how active

Congress wishes to be. The most pressing transportation problems call for changes in infrastructure investment and system management policies.6

If Congress decides that having an operating intercity maglevT or tiltrotor system in the next 10 to 15

years is an important goal, it will have to support the

6 office of Technolo~ Assessment, op. cit., footnote 1, p. 130.

7 The Qr]ando system will not be an intercity route, and Texas is considering high-speed rail, not maglev.
Chapter 5 Federal Policy Issues for Maglev and Tiltrotor ● 95

development of these technologies because neither

system is yet perfected. The policy choices for operational implementation depend little on who develops

the technology, although technology leadership often

allows the home country to set standards, criteria, and

procedures for applications.

Issues for Implementing Alternative

Transportation Systems

In deciding whether alternative technologies are

necessary for meeting future transportation needs,

Congress must consider that new collateral policies for

existing transportation modes may be required for

ultimate success. Environmental or congestion management efforts might be required to help shift traffic

to an alternative mode. Transportation infrastructure

is costly and usually needs public support. Moreover,

health, safety, and environmental guidelines and regulations for transportation operations are usually Federal responsibilities, although States and local

governments can establish more stringent requirements.

Installing maglev and tiltrotor systems would expand overall mobility considerably. As other transportation modes —particularly highways and

airports—become more congested, these additional

transportation choices and increased capacity will become more valuable. Current data indicate that ticket

prices higher than now charged by most airlines will be

necessary if revenue from fares alone must cover full

costs for establishing and operating these systems. Experience tells us that passengers are not likely to switch

voluntarily from their current travel mode choices unless the value of time savings or other factors outweighs higher fares and any other extra costs.

Congestion levels for highway and air travel might rise

enough to make the higher relative costs for maglev or

tiltrotor more attractive to consumers if no unforeseen

changes in travel habits or technologies occur in the

meantime.

Although each transportation mode offers advantages over the others in certain areas, overall system

benefits, such as congestion reduction or energy/environmental gains, will not occur without additional,

collateral policy changes. Significant latent demand

usually exists for transportation infrastructure where

substantial congestion occurs, and plenty of new conventional transportation service providers would be

pressed to fill the vacancies left by any who choose to

switch to maglev or tiltrotor. Additionally, Congress

must consider whether a new system is to provide

premium service only or to offer more affordable mass

transportation, in which case additional public support

may be necessary. Another question that needs to be

addressed is whether a new transportation mode that

vies for airline or highway passengers should be protected from anticompetitive practices. (Characteristics

of some air and rail transportation modes are compared in table 5-2.)

Tiltrotor Operating System Options

Federal efforts to foster tiltrotor operations will

enhance vertical flight in general, and maybe considered part of a broader policy framework. However,

higher performance vehicles, such as tiltrotors and

tiltwings, may prompt changes in ATC and landing

facility infrastructure independent of other rotorcraft

needs. Several steps are necessary for successful commercial vertical flight in the United States.

Support Infrastructure Development—Some of

the air and ground infrastructure necessary for tiltrotor operations can be developed before commercial

tiltrotors are available. Federal funds and policies already support public airfield construction and improvement, and any facilities built with tiltrotor in

mind would be capable of serving most civilian rotorcraft. However, current funding guidelines do not address heliports built to tiltrotor standards, since

civilian tiltrotors are not yet a certainty. Some communities that are planning heliports want them suitable

for future needs, and suitable guidelines could be developed. For the marginal cost of meeting tiltrotor

standards, it is prudent to build vertiports at locations

where there is public support for them and public

heliport construction is planned. Congress may wish to

encourage FAA to clarify the present policy on vertiport funding.
Table 5-2-lntercity Transportation Technology Comparisons for the Northeast Corridor (NEC)

Jetliner tiltrotor maglev High-speed rail

(128-seat B737-300)

Conventional rail

(39-seat nonmilitary) (200-seat Transrapid) (350-seat TGV) (350-seat Metroliner)

Performance:

Maximum speed . .......550 mph

Total trip time one-way

between DC and

NYCa

. ..............3.2 h r

Energy consumption .. ..50-70 seat-miles per

gallon (smpg)c

Economics:

(for 10-million annual passenger trips in the NEC)

Vehicle capital costs ... .$1.1 billion for 37

airocraft

Infrastructure capital

costsd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Minimal new

construction needed

to handle NEC

passengers

Vehicle operating

Costsh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 cents per seat-mile

350 mph

1.9 hr

30-35 smpg

$1.4 billion for 117 aircraft

$0.5 billion for 12 vertiports

12.6 cents per seat-mile

250 mph

2.6 hr

250 smpg

$0.2 billion for 25 vehicles

$7.2 billion for new

guideway systemf

3.4 cents per seat-mile

185 mph

3.0 hr

300 smpg

$0.5 billion for 20 trainsets

$3.6 billion for new rail

systemg

4.3 cents per seat-mile

125 mph

4.1 hr

200 smpg

$0.4 billion for 29

trainsets

$2.0 billion to upgrade

rail system between

Boston and NYC

4.9 cents per seat-mile

aThe total time to travel door-to door from origin to destination is most important to time-sensitive passengers. Each travelercdd experience different delays (e.g., ground access,

waiting at the terminal, mechanical difficulties) on each trip. The following assumptions were made for 1) average vehicle speeda~ 2) typical combined ground-access and delay

time for the calculations shown in the table. Vehicle speed/access and delay--jetliner: 355 mph/149 minutes; tiltrotor: 310 mph/72 minutes; maglev: 200 mph/90 minutes;

high-speed rail: 150 mph/90 minutes; Metroliner: 90 mph/90 minutes. Jetliner and tiltrotor estimates come from the NASA/FAA civil tiltrotor study: Boeing Commercial Airplane

Group et al., Civil tiltrotorMissions and Applications Phrase II: The Commercial Passenger Market, prepared for National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Federal

Aviation Administration, NASA CR 177576 (Seattle, WA: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, February 1991 ); calculations for ground access and delays for rail and maglevcome

from: John B. Hopkins, “Innovative Technology for InterCity Passenger Systems,” Passenger Transportation in High-Density Corridors (Cambridge, MA: Volpe National

Transportation Systems Center, November 1990), p. 44. The distance between Washington, DC, to New York City is roughly 200 miles; actual travel distance depends on terminal

locations and routing.

bEnergy use by each mode converted into equivalent gallons of jet fuel.

cFuel efficiency of 75 to 100 smpg is feasible for new jetliners entering service after the year 2000, the earliest time that intercity tiltrotor or maglev could be established.

d

lnfrastructure for convetional aircraft and train Service exists. Tiltrotors could use current airways and air traffic control (ATC) facilities, but would need new Ianding areas for

optimal service. maglev and high-speed rail require new guideways and supporting infrastructure; the calculations in the table assume 450 miles of new guideway for maglev

or high-speed rail.

%3rigin-to-destination air travel between the major airports in Washington, DC, Phil,@elphia, New York, and Boston presently accounts for around 10 percent of the total

passengers and aircrafl operations at those airports. Other air travel demands will be the major factors affecting airport and ATC infrastructure.

f[nfr=tmcture formaglev, high-sp~ r~l, andconventio~{ r~l ind~e guideways, b~ges, g~deseparations, e[ectrif~tion, $igna~cornnluni~tionsystems, and stations. The

costs for a Transrapid maglev guideway system have been estimated at $10 million to $40 million per mile; $16 million per mile is assumed in the table.

9The capital costs for a new high-speed rail guideway system have been estimated at $4 million to $30 million per mile; $8 million per mile is assumed in the tabfe.

hlnd~es crew, fuel, Vehicle m~ntename, and vehi&f~anung(15 years~th &~percent interest ~th semi-annual payments). mes not incf~e vehicle insurance and indirect

operating costs such as passenger and baggage handling, sales, administration, real estate maintenance, and liability insurance. Assumes 3.4 billion seat-miles per year.
Table 5-2—lntercity Transportation Technology Comparisons for the Northeast Corridor (NEC)-Continued

Jetliner Tiitrotor maglev High-speed rail Conventional rail

(128-seat B737-300) (39-seat nonmilitary) (200-seat Transrapid) (350-seat TGV) (350-seat Metroliner)

Infrastructure

amortization’ . . . . . . . . . Not calculated j

Miscellaneous:

Infrastructure use, . . . . . . Multiple operators of all

aircraft types can use

conventional airports

Other uses for

vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . Military, corporate

Worldwide technology

leaders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . United States, Western

Europe

Federal regulatory

status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Well established

1.3 cents per seat-mile

Multiple operators of most

vertical takeoff and

landing aircraft could use

vertiports

Military, corporate, public

service

United States

Within current framework;

specific guidelines

available

18.2 cents per seat-mile

Maglev guideways limited

to specific vehicles; more

than one common carrier

per route feasible

Transit, commuter, airport

connector

Germany, Japan

Existing rail regulations

conflict with maglev

characteristics; new

guidelines are being

developed

9.1 cents per seat-mile

High-speed rail tracks

suitable for most

nonfreight trains; current

routes are restricted to

single operators

Airport connector

France, Germany, Japan

Some conflict with current

rail regulations

5.0 cents per seat-mile

Tracks are used by a

wide range of trains,

including local

commuters

Commuter

Europe, Japan, North

America

Well established

iAmort~ation Overa 2@y=rperiodwith~percent interest and semi-annual paymen~; 3.4billiOn seat-miles peryear. Infrastmcture operating and maintenance (O&M) COStS are

not included in this table. These costs are difficult to compare among different transportation modes as some infrastructure O&M costs are paid with public revenues and others

care covered by private resources.

JAirport and ATC infrastructure cost billions of dollars to put in place. However, unlike the other transportation systems listed in this table, jetliners would not require new

infrastructure to serve the NEC at the trip times indicated. See footnote e.

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991; and as stated in footnote a.
98 ● New Ways: tiltrotor Aircraft and Magnetically Levitated Vehicles

Some ATC procedures and technologies being developed by FAA for helicopter operations will also

serve tiltrotors and tiltwings. Steeper approach paths8

desired for tiltrotors, tiltwings, and commercial helicopters can be investigated with simulators and tested

with available prototype aircraft and ground facilities,

ensuring that a technically capable infrastructure

could be in place for initial operators of advanced

VTOL aircraft.

Establish Safety and Environmental Criteria—

FAA is developing basic airworthiness and operating

criteria for powered-lift vehicles (tiltrotor is one type

of powered-lift) and is collecting V-22 data. These

efforts should be continued and completed. Noise

standards and guidelines for tiltrotors must be completed to aid in vertiport planning.9

Establish a Competitive Framework to the Extent

Feasible—If a suitable vertiport network is put in

place, tiltrotors may be able to compete on an equal

basis with jet shuttle or other modes, and the market

will decide its success. Increased flights into the ATC

system, changed noise patterns, and increased energy

consumption must be balanced against the time savings and increased mobility for air travelers when considering public policies for intercity tiltrotor service.

Moreover, tiltrotors could increase airport capacity

and productivity if they replace small conventional

aircraft on a one-to-one basis and open runway slots

for larger airplanes. Since tiltrotors are more expensive to operate than similarly sized commuter aircraft,

airport feeder service may have to be subsidized in

some form if tiltrotors are to replace commuters. One

option is to use a common fund, such as the Aviation

Trust Fund or an airport-specific account, to pay the

cost differential for any operator who replaces a conventional aircraft with a tiltrotor if the public benefits

justify it. While a major airline could gain from access

to a new runway slot and might be willing to cross-subsidize tiltrotors out of fare revenues, it would have to

be assured access to specific landing slots. Airline control of runway slots, however, remains a contentious

issue. Any competitive market changes by airlines will

also change the framework for tiltrotor.

maglev Operating System Options

If Congress wishes to promote intercity rail and

maglev operating systems, there are steps it could take

regardless of whether or not a specific technology is

favored.

Establish a Right-of-Way Policy-Available and affordable rights-of-way are key to maglev and highspeed rail operational feasibility. Use of the median

strips, shoulders, and air rights of interstate highways

is one possibility considered for maglev. General support for intermodal use of interstate highways is being

deliberated in current surface transportation

reauthorization legislation, and Congress needs to resolve existing Federal statutory restrictions, which now

require full reimbursement for use of interstate rightsof-way. However, it is unclear to what extent a highspeed surface transportation system could use highway

rights-of-way laid out for speeds of 70 mph.

Establish Infrastructure Financing Policy—Unlike that for highways, transit, water transportation,

and aviation, there is no Federal program for financing

infrastructure for intercity maglev or high-speed rail,

and thus extensive maglev or high-speed rail systems

are unlikely to be built unless this policy is changed.

Current State transportation funds are committed

mostly to highway programs, although some States

might be willing to offer tax advantages to help finance

maglev or high-speed rail systems. Flexible use by

States of current Federal surface transportation allocations is another possibility. A separate program of

mATChing State support for high-speed rail or maglev

systems is also an option. While small-scale State initiatives might be considered independent of specific

technology, any financial commitment to a maglev

system on a multistate or national scale requires an

infrastructure standard for interoperability (i.e., like

the interstate highway system). Various high-speed rail

technologies, for the most part, can use common

tracks. Differences are due mostly to maximum speed

requirements.

Establish Federal Regulatory Guidelines for

maglev Safety-Since States turn to the Federal Gov8 Although current heli~pters takeoff and land vertically, they now fly shallow approach paths similar to airplanes.

9 Noise standards are established for helicopters (14 CFR 36) and helipofi planning (14 CFR 150).
Chapter 5 Federal Policy Issues for Maglev and tiltrotor ● 99

ernment for guidance on rail safety oversight, FRA

regulatory policy for intercity high-speed rail or maglev

systems must be expanded before such systems can be

built. FRA is working with the States of Florida and

Texas in preparing for their new systems. This effort

will have to be expanded in scope if either of these

technologies is to be implemented on a national scale.

Issues of dedicated rights-of-way for passenger traffic

and full-system safety requirements dictate rethinking

of current FRA regulations, and Congress could consider encouraging such a change at DOT.

Establish a Competitive Framework—maglev and

high-speed rail would be new entries into the highspeed intercity transportation market, which is presently dominated by large airlines. Airline marketing

power and large, established route structure could be

strong assets or formidable opponents to intercity maglev

or high-speed rail. It is unclear what effect airline or

Amtrak decisions could have on the prospects for

private financing of maglevor high-speed rail projects,

and this issue needs further study. The ongoing Texas

high-speed rail project should prove a valuable case

study for Congress.
APPENDIXES
APPENDIX A

The Effects of Electromagnetic Fields

Electric and magnetic fields exist in the natural

environment and are present wherever there is electric

power. At lower frequencies and long wavelengths, the

fields can be identified separately as electric and magnetic fields. At higher frequencies, where these fields

are usually coupled, the fields are often referred to as

electromagnetic radiation or non-ionizing radiation.

Electric and magnetic fields are collectively called electromagnetic fields (EMF). EMF can include alternating current (AC), which produces oscillating electric

and magnetic fields, and direct current (DC), which

produces steady fields.

Because magnetic levitation (maglev) uses electric

propulsion and onboard power capabilities, passengers are exposed to EMF. In addition, local residents

and others close to the right-of-way are exposed to

fields, although the magnitude drops off sharply with

distance. These exposures are comparable to those

from electric power transmission and distribution

lines. Figure A-1 summarizes the field strengths encountered in maglev systems and common appliances.

However, precise health risks associated with EMF

exposure, if any, are not understood. Researchers are

confident that high-intensity DC fields are detrimental

to human health, and low intensities are now of concern, but the effects of AC fields and interactions

between electric and magnetic fields are not well

known. Much more research is required before conclusions can be drawn about the potential dangers to

human health associated with frequent exposure to

weak EMF, as typically encountered in home, office,

and urban environments.

Possible health concerns include cancer, alterations

in the central nervous system, and effects on the reproductive system. It has been determined that even low

EMF can trigger certain biochemical responses critical

to the functioning of cells. Of special concern to the

transportation industry are possible EMF effects causing depressed melatonin production and shifts in circadian rhythms. These affect fatigue, alertness, and

reaction time, and therefore are especially important

for transportation workers. However, the magnitude

of these responses, whether they are transient and

reversible and their effects on overall human health,

are not understood.

The lack of consistent data on human exposure to

EMF pose barriers to any inferences about potentially

harmful health effects. To compound the problem,

consistent methods of measurement and modeling for

EMF strengths, geometry, and frequency have not yet

been developed.1

While it is clear that a maglev system will produce

EMF, it is not known what, if any, health effects these

fields would have on the system’s passengers. In the

early Japanese prototype maglev, superconducting

magnets with very high-flux densities were used, resulting in high-strength DC magnetic fields in the cabin

area (up to 350 gauss) without appropriate shielding.

Passive shielding, incorporating ferrous or other special metals,2 can combat this potential hazard, although light-weight shield materials are expensive and

hard to obtain. The Japanese have recently redesigned

the superconducting maglev vehicle to lower cabin

exposure levels below a 10-gauss nominal level. Active

shielding approaches, in which magnetic fields are purposely generated to cancel other magnetic fields, are

another possible control measure.

The intensity of fields found adjacent to the rightof-way varies for different maglev designs, presenting

potential new problems, since States have differing

restrictions on permissible levels of DC and AC fields.

Although the World Health Organization has published interim EMF guidelines for workplace exposure to

higher frequencies, as of yet there is no national policy

1 For more information, see U.S. Con ress, Office of Technology Assessment, Biological Effecfi of Power FreWenq EZecm”c and Mapetic

Fiela%, OTA-BP-E-53 (Washington, DC: L.S. Government Printing Office, May 1989).

2 Ibid., p. 16.

-1o3-
/04 ● New Ways: Tiltrotor Aircraft and Magnetically levitated Vehicles

Figure A-l—Typical Electromagnetic Fields Under Everyday Conditions

500=k V In house Houset rans - near hold Be neat h

m issi o n 500=k V E Iect r E Iectr ic back - d ist ri bu t Ion

1 0

1

Electric field

averaged over o 1

body suface “

( k ilovolts/meter)a

0.01

0.001

Iine Iine blanket 8 have r ground Iine

Average magnetic

field within the

body (milligauss)b

Duration

(minutes

per day)

1,000

100

10

1

0.1

1,000

100

10

1

0.1

SOURCE: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991.
Appendix A-The Effects of Electromagnetic Fields ● /05

on EMF exposure limits, and States are subject to

interest group pressure to lower the allowable levels.

maglev is not the only transportation system with

potential EMF problems. Although no significant

studies have been conducted on the subject, steelwheel technologies, such as rail transit and intercity

rail, which use a significant electrical power source,

also create EMF. Because of the unknown health hazards of EMF, more studies and tests must be conducted

before these systems are given final approval. Congress

directed the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)

in the fiscal year 1991 maglev appropriations bill to

adopt a safety research program to study and counter

the potential problems associated with EMF in maglev

and high-speed rail systems. FRA must develop safety

and operating standards for maglev, address basic

R&D questions (including superconducting magnets

and magnetic shielding), and initiate a comprehensive

research program to identify, characterize, and minimize potential health effects associated with magnetic

fields generated by maglev systems. FRA assisted by

the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, is

undertaking a multiyear research and development

program on health effects of magnetic fields associated

with maglev and high-speed rail technologies under

the 1990 National maglev Initiative. The program will

be integrated into a comprehensive system safety study

of maglev and advanced rail concepts proposed for

U.S. applications.
APPENDIX B

Federal Transportation Conclusions and Policy Options

Excerpted From “Delivering the Goods’”

In 1988, following a number of national studies calling in vain for more investment in public works infrastructure,

the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works asked OTA to identify ways to change Federal policies

and programs to make public works more productive and efficient. The results of this study were released in April

1991 in the OTA report, Delivering the Goods: Public Works Technologies, Management, and Financing. Substantial

portions of the report deal with issues that underlie tiltrotor and maglev and a few are excerpted and provided

below.

Institutional Issues

Neither DOT [Department of Transportation] nor Congress has successfully overcome strong, separate modal

interests and achieved an appropriate systems approach to solving transportation problems. In Congress, only the

appropriations committees have sufficiently comprehensive jurisdiction, but those committees were never intended to

set transportation policy. DOT’s recently published National Transportation Policy recognized this and encouraged a

multimodal approach toward transportation problems. However, this encouragement is not enough; OTA concludes that

unless steps are taken to institutionalize a multimodal approach within DOT, the traditional modally oriented structure

will be perpetuated and the agency will not be able to address today’s transportation issues effectively.2

If the Federal Government is to regain a leadership role in transportation, changes in institutional management must

be made. One way to effect change would be to create surface transportation programs that support intercity passenger,

urban, and freight transportation, and connections to ports and airports. Over the longer term, options include

restructuring DOT in divisions by broad mode-aviation, surface and water transportation--or by function, such as

metropolitan passenger and intercity freight transportation. Reforming congressional oversight as well, by developing a

mechanism to coordinate or concentrate transportation authorization, will be crucial to the success of a restructured

DOT.

3

Spending Priorities

Broadening categorical grant programs to permit greater flexibility on the part of local governments in using trust

fund monies, especially for maintenance programs, is probably the best way to ensure that short-term capacity and

condition needs are met. Next in importance are reshaping Federal policies to encourage fair pricing and efficient

infrastructure use and to increase State and local spending to raise the total national investment. Making more Federal

monies available for passenger and commuter rail and mass transit are options for improving the efficiency of transportation

system use. Although comrnuter rail and transit have long been considered primarily regional or local services, a compelling

case can be made for their importance to interstate commerce, since each represents an alternative way to increase

highway capacity in urban areas. Congress could also permit States and jurisdictions to use surface transportation grant

funds for mass transit and passenger and freight rail improvements, if doing so is a priority to their regional or State

transportation system plans.’

For the longer term, an intensive Federal effort should be started now aimed at developing and implementing a

strategic policy and research agenda for transportation to evaluate the tradeoffs of alternative ways to address overcrowded intercity corridors and urban traffic congestion. This program must have funding support and participation from

all the transportation modal administrations and from the industries that will benefit.s

1 U.S. ~ngr=, Office of Technolo~ Assessment, Delivering the Gooak Public Works Technologies, M~ag~ ~ and Financing

OTA-SET-477 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1991).

2 Ibid., p. 132.

3 Ibid., p. 132.

4 Ibid., p. 26.

5 Ibid., p. 27.

-106-
Appendix B--Federal Transportation Conclusions and Policy Options . 107

Support for Technical Innovation

Public works services are expected to be reasonably priced and reliable; they do not lend themselves to trial-anderror methods of selection. Local officials use tried and true technologies, because they do not have the analytical resources

to assure the performance of a new technology and cannot afford the political or operational risk of failure. Thus, liability

concerns haunt suppliers, manufacturers, and public officials as well, and manifold difficulties confront the developer of a

new technology for public works. Many a technology entrepreneur is frustrated by rejection of his attempts to have his

development tested, so a track record can be developed.6

Cooperative, joint efforts between private sector suppliers and government to demonstrate and evaluate new

technologies for safety, durability, and long-term costs are excellent ways to spread the risk and overcome some of the

difficulties of the procurement process for new technologies. OTA concludes that supporting such development and

evaluation programs is an essential Federal function that has been inadequately supported in every public works field

except aviation and water transportation. Increasing DOT investment in such programs for highways, mass transit, and

passenger rail by 50 percent would bring substantial returns in improved public works performance.7

Management and Institutional Priorities for Research

As a result of budget cutbacks and the lack of coordination for [research and development] R&D over the past decade,

each administration’s R&D has become increasingly modally oriented and focused on supporting short-term program

objectives. The lack of long-range and systems-oriented R&D has left DOT unprepared to address current national needs,

such as transportation-related air quality issues and urban capacity issues. While the agency is attempting to make up for

these shortcomings

8

now, developing and implementing appropriate new programs and ensuring adequate funding are

major challenges.

While DOT provides direct support for regional transportation, it commits its resources on a modal basis, with R&D

support heavily skewed toward [the Federal Aviation Administration] FAA and [the Federal Highway Administration]

FHWA. Data collection on travel and shipping patterns has been neglected. As a result, alternatives to current and future

transportation patterns are not pursued, and one outgrowth is the dearth of R&D on interrnodal connections. Both public

and private transportation officials have identified the lack of information about inter-modal linkages, such as airport-ground

and port-to-railhead access, as a stumbling block to developing policies that support growth and increased capacity.

Revision of the current modally defined R&D is long overdue, and DOT needs to develop R&D programs to address

intermodal needs and capacity enhancing transportation alternatives. Congress could require DOT to collect and analyze

freight commodity and passenger flow data and to constitute and institutionalize a mechanism to ensure that all its R&D

takes into account interdisciplinary and intermodal issues. Options include establishing a transportation data office or

center, strengthening the R&D Coordinating Council, and creating an effective Secretary-level R&D coordimtor.9

Federal public works R&D efforts tend to be low profile and are often overshadowed by the obvious problems of

infrastructure upkeep and construction; R&D programs often fail to weather the first and deepest cuts when departmentwide budgets shrink. In the short term, Congress may want to consider authorizing and appropriating agency R&D budgets

on a separate line-item basis to guarantee executive agency commitment and greater financial stability for R&D programs. 10

6 Ibid., p. 35.

7 Ibid., p. 36.

~ Ibid+, pp. 219-220.

9 Ibid., pp. 236-237.

l“Ibid., p. 236.