Enough of the Maglev Castles in the Air!
I have been working intensively on maglevs in Germany for over 6 years. In that time, I have noticed a recurring pattern: maglev projects show up in the press, get blown up in the media for a few weeks, and then disappear just as quickly. It often remains unclear what technical and scientific foundations they rest on and why they are dropped so quietly. In many cases, there is neither solid substance nor clear, democratically legitimate decisions in local councils, and yet reports are written as if a breakthrough were imminent.
That is exactly why I am calling on manufacturers and politicians for a fundamental change of course: more seriousness in communication, fewer castles in the air without sound studies or transport problems to solve, and instead more transparency, early and genuine public participation, and real persuasion rather than short-lived headlines.
And before things get mixed up again at this point, one thing matters to me: the technology itself is capable and deserves to be taken seriously. Quiet, low-maintenance, efficient, future-proof. The problems begin where technology is supposed to become political reality.
Infrastructure comes from acceptance, not from leaks
For almost every other kind of infrastructure, a clear pattern emerges: it gets built because society demands it. Bike lanes are expanded because citizens call for them. Rural roads are upgraded because regions apply pressure. The expansion of bus or tram service is almost always the result of years of local discussion, citizens' initiatives and political debate. That is how infrastructure works in a democracy. With the maglev, it is different.
Maglev projects generally do not surface in public because there is broad public demand, but because plans or musings of individual politicians become public. Often the topic seeps through to the press via political conversations or administrative circles. The media then gratefully pick it up, either because the maglev sounds modern and spectacular, or because it can just as easily be framed negatively. Both generate attention, but neither replaces a factual debate.
This pattern was most recently on display in Berlin. After visiting the manufacturer, politicians stepped in front of the public and raved about the technology, innovation and future viability, and were already calling for a maglev in the capital. What was completely missing was any concrete statement about where this line would actually go, what transport problem it would solve, or why it would make sense compared with existing alternatives. It looked as if a solution was first presented with enthusiasm and a fitting problem was then desperately sought. Naturally, citizens and opposition parties then turn against it.
Individuals get persuaded, not the public
A recurring problem is that the focus is often on convincing individual decision-makers. Once they are won over, the assumption seems to be that the rest will take care of itself. But that is exactly what does not happen.
Instead, resistance regularly follows from the opposition, the administration or the citizenry. Not necessarily because people are against new technology on principle, but because transparency is lacking and opponents use that room to spread misinformation. That is not how viable projects come about.
Media dynamics make this problem worse. As soon as a maglev project becomes public, big headlines appear. But in many cases, no solid foundation exists at that point.
When feasibility studies then follow, they often look like an after-the-fact justification rather than an open assessment. If they reach a negative or sobering result, the project is quietly buried. What remains is the impression that the maglev "once again doesn't work." That impression is misleading, but it shapes public perception. This pattern has been repeating itself over and over for years, and as a defender of the technology, I too have had it up to here with constantly having to justify "why project XY failed."
Nuremberg as an example of a structural flaw
Nuremberg shows this pattern especially clearly. The topic was picked up by the media early and accompanied prominently by politicians. When the feasibility study arrived many months later, however, the emphasis was less on openly discussing the results than on quickly classifying them: the maglev was said to be inferior to the tram in cost-benefit terms. With that, the matter was effectively closed.
Without a citizen base, every idea stays fragile
Infrastructure projects need public backing. As long as maglev projects are perceived primarily as the political ideas of individual players, that basis is missing. If you don't explain to people why a particular solution might make sense, you cannot expect them to advocate for it.
If the maglev is to have a realistic prospect in Germany, a different approach is needed. Fewer surprise announcements, more early transparency. Fewer abstract visions, more concrete, city-specific arguments about benefits. And above all: more systematic involvement of citizens.
Information events, open discussions, comprehensible comparisons and clear estimates of costs and benefits are not an obstacle but a prerequisite for acceptance. Anyone who skips this step produces resistance, regardless of the quality of the technology.
The technology is not the problem
I still believe in the maglev. But I do not believe it will prevail without fundamental changes in how planning and communication are handled.
The maglev is not a headline and not a political symbol. It is infrastructure.
And infrastructure comes not from leaks or press hype, but from facts.
