Donna Almquist wrote, from her perspective as a counselor, that we should not build maglev trains because we need to preserve the natural environment (“Maglev isn’t the answer,” Nov. 7).
What Ms. Almquist doesn't consider is that people are going to travel back and forth between the District of Columbia, Baltimore, Wilmington, Philadelphia and New York whether she likes it or not. So in order to preserve our natural environment, which, I agree, is important, they should travel in a way that is least likely to pollute the environment.
Electric trains are much more efficient, and therefore less polluting, than jet planes or gasoline or diesel cars. We already have rapid rail transit along the D.C. to New York corridor, but if you add Bridgeport, Providence and Boston to the transit corridor, steel rails are no longer rapid and maglev makes sense.
A maglev train is totally quiet. There are no moving parts. No wheels roll on tracks. The train floats silently on a cushion of magnetic force. There are no fumes from exhaust like there are from buses.
So maglev can create fewer problems for people living nearby or far away than planes, trains, buses or cars.
Dr. Henry Farkas, Pikesville
Become a subscriber today to support editorial writing like this. Start getting full access to our signature journalism for just 99 cents for the first four weeks.