ENGR0011/0711 Section

Group #

MAGLEV CONSTRUCTION ETHICS

Ryan Rosenbaum ()

1

Ryan Rosenbaum

INTRODUCTION TO ENGINEERING ETHICS

Engineering and ethics are completely inseparable. In this field where innovation and invention consumes the majority, the ceiling for questioning what can be done, and more importantly what should be done, is quite high. Engineers must take integrity and honesty to be the highest priorities, as it is their responsibility to ensure that all products are safe and ready for the consumer. All walks of life are directly impacted by the outcomes of engineering endeavors, and thus it is essential that the common good is heldchiefly important. When designing and creating a product, it is not uncommon that the easiest path, is by no means the most ethically sound path, causing many engineers to have several complicated decisions to make along the way.While the consideration of ethics can certainly complicate and prolong the design process, they simply cannot be ignored.

CASE STUDY: NEW YORK CITY TO WASHINGTON DC MAGLEV LINE

My name is Ryan Rosenbaum, and I am a professional within the mechanical engineering field. I work alongside a team of engineers for Magnetic Motors Unlimited, a company that is currently working towards developing a long distance magnetic levitation (maglev)train line along the east coast. The current plan for the route spans from New York City to Washington DC. My team is currently in the provisional phase of the project, working towards gainingapproval from investors and lawmakers,in addition to obtaining the necessary permits. We have nearly completed the blueprint for the design, however we have encountered a significant amount of opposition, mostly due to its projected construction cost that continues to rise, the environmental impact of the system, and the argument to stay with conventional high speed rail systems.

The implementation costs of our provisional design are quite high, raising concerns surrounding the funding of the project. The main problems are related to the fact that the line lies across several states, muddling the location where the responsibilities to fund lies. My Maryland sanctioned company is certainly affluent, however not nearly enough to front a multi-billion dollar project. Because of this, we have been desperately proposing our plan to a variety on investors, and more importantly taxpayers, along the east coast, explaining the tremendous upsides of a transportation innovation of this magnitude. These upsides include an outstanding tested top speed of over 300 mph, which doubles that of existing high speed rail systems. This high speed would allow for a convenient ride of just under an hour between two of the most important cities along the east coast. This would offer a smooth and easy ride for commuters and tourists, as both destinations have plenty to offer for either.It would seem that the benefit of having this line installed would outweigh the costs, however there is still an ethical decision to be made. This decision involves determining whether the line would benefit enough consumers in order to justify the use of federal taxpayer money to help cover construction costs. My company has held several meetings with Boards of Supervisors in attempts to gain the necessary federal grants, however most have demanded to see more concrete projections for daily passenger counts. Due to this, as of late we have been working harder to survey and persuade public opinion in the favor of our project, so that we can secure an appropriate amount of projected passengers. If we are able to do this successfully, we should hopefully receive a sufficient amount of federal grants so that we can begin construction.

Aside from the monetary aspect of the implementation of our design, another widely disputed aspect is the environmental impact of maglev systems. While they are significantly sustainable in terms of energy use per passenger, the actual construction of the powerful and large-scale electromagnets that are used within the system is a very high energy production. While the argument can certainly be made that the long lasting sustainability of the system outweighs the high energy production of the system’s materials, it is imperative that these factors are closely examined by our team of engineers to make sure that overall energy usage of production, construction, and operation are ethically responsible.

The final, and possibly most disputed decision to be made surrounding our design is whether the implementation of a relatively new maglev technology is actually worth the transition away from traditional high speed rail systems that already exists within the United States. There are many benefits of maglev as compared to conventional high speed rail, including much higher speeds, greater sustainability and renewability, and a smoother ride for passengers. Despite these benefits, many argue to stay with conventional high speed rail systems because they are a more familiar technology to construct, that also has lower initial construction costs. Although these may be true, it must also be brought to attention that the use of non-renewable fuels is something that we should try to move away from as a society. Conveniently this is the case with maglev, as the only fuel required is the electricity run through the electromagnetic tracks. It is our responsibility as engineers to analyze and compare the two technologies in order to prove which is truly the more ethically reasonable to implement.

APPLICATION OF CODES OF ETHICS TO THIS CASE

The first ethical decision that must be made surrounding this case is how to go about gaining federal grants to help cover construction costs of the project. The National Society of Professional Engineers (NPSE) code of ethics states that, “Engineers shall be guided in all their relations by the highest standards of honesty and integrity” [1]. This guide is essential when proposing plans to Boards of Supervisors or even the public, because it is most ethical to provide information that is fully honest and accurate as to not mislead anyone involved in supporting the project. According to the same code of ethics, it is also imperative that, “Engineers shall issue public statements in an objective and truthful manner” [1]. This also applies strongly to this decision as it means we must only express to the public the raw facts about the implementation of our design, including all drawbacks such as the high costs. This could make it harder to gain support from the public, but it is our responsibility as engineers to follow these codes. So, we must only express completely accurate and non-biased information, and hope that we are still able to gain the necessary support so that we can get our project fully funded and underway. Furthermore, the NSPE code of ethics also states that, “Engineers shall avoid all conduct or practice that deceive the public” [1]. These three canons make the right ethical decision quite clear in this instance, that it is my company’s responsibility to express our project proposals with full transparency, and leave it entirely up to the public to decide whether they would support and benefit from the implementation of our design. As it would be entirely unethical to fabricate appealing details in order to gain more support.

The ethical decision related to the environmental impact of the design is less clear cut when it comes to the application of codes of ethics. This is simply because the standards for what is considered an acceptable environmental impact is not explicitly stated by any means, however the foundation of the decision can be generally implied if the team of engineers is careful enough when considering all aspects of the design. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers code of ethics insists that, “Engineers shall consider environmental impact and sustainable development in the performance of their professional duties” [2]. While this does not exactly aid in the decision of whether to construct the line or not based on its environmental impact, it does show that these factors are weighted heavily within the field of engineering. Due to this, it is essential that my team puts forth our best efforts towards researching and testing materials during production in order to ensure that we are following this ethical guide. Aside from the production of materials, it is also very important that we research and refine the logistics of the design and its operation, so that we can establish that it is sustainable throughout its development. If we do this to the best of our abilities, I believe that the implementation of our design will be ethical in regards to its environmental impact and sustainability.

The final dilemma regarding our case is definitely the most complicated ethically. This is because this decision takes into consideration not only cost, but also how the weight of the cost compares to that of the environmental impact between two very different train systems. While it is very clearly stated by the NSPE that, “Engineers are encouraged to adhere to the principals of sustainable development in order to protect the environment for future generations” [1], there are no clear guidelines in relation to cost comparison. This does make it easy to decide which design is superior in terms of sustainability, seeing as electric power is significantly more sustainable than oil based fuel. However, the codes of ethics do not necessarily provide a guide for to what to do if the more sustainable design option has higher construction costs, and will thus require more federal funding. The decision between these two forms of transportation is one that cannot be decided by our company alone, based on the NSPE code of ethics, it is in the best interest that, “Engineers disclose all known or potential conflicts of interest that could influence their judgement or the quality of their services” [1]. This means the most ethically correct thing to do in this case would be to propose a completely accurate comparison of the two different forms, and let the Boards of Supervisors and the public express their support towards one or the other. While this could certainly cause our project to lose some support, it is our responsibility as engineers to act strictly under the guide of our codes of ethics.

ADDITIONAL FACTORS RELATED TO ETHICAL DECISIONS

Japanese Maglev

There are not a multitude of cases related to the development of maglev projects, however there are some that are relevant and can certainly provide a guide towards making the correct decisions in this case. One specific case that is highly relevant and recent, is the increase of development of maglev in Japan. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is motivated to implement a maglev line connecting Tokyo and Osaka. The design has a projected cost of almost one hundred billion dollars so far, and is not supposed to be completed for just over a decade [3]. The magnitude of this design has undoubtedly brought some significant criticism, especially because Japan as a nation is declining in population. The declining population is a red flag to critics who believe that, because of this, there will not be enough passengers to support such a massive investment. Despite all concerns, the Prime Minister is motivated to continue developing the project, in an attempt to resurrect the technological prowess of the nation of Japan.

One significant difference between this case, and the case my company is involved with is that, “Central Japan Railway Co, the publicly traded company developing the maglev train…intends to finance the new line itself, relying on the cash flow from the existing Tokyo-Osaka… rail line, rather than taxpayer money” [4]. This fact puts some pressure on my company in regards to funding, as we will almost definitely not be able to independently support our designfinancially. Although, I believe our situation with public usage of the design is rather different than that of the Japan case, most importantly the population of the east coast is far from declining, and will continue to provide increasing use of the line in the future. This, in my opinion, warrants the use of taxpayer money far more than the Japan case would. However, this still does show me that the support of the public is chiefly important if we are going to use federal funding, so in order to successfully carry through our plan we must get the public to wholeheartedly want the design to be implemented.

Midwest Light Rail Transit System

This case deals with the estimation of demand for a new light rail transit system in Midwest country. The company involved delves into the estimation they determined for the demand, and how involved the process is of using these estimations in proposals to the county board of supervisors. The case study describes the struggles associated with making these proposals, however they find success relatively quickly in gaining support and acceptance from the board. This case study proves to me that so long as the supporting evidence of demand is concrete and technical enough, there will be no problem gaining support for the project. I will keep this in mind when expressing my proposal, so that support will be clearly warranted [5].

Parental Advisory

Apart from analyzing codes of ethics and relatable ethical case studies, I made one final consultation. This consultation was one that was especially important to me, my Mother and my Father. I felt that, as my elders that I respect very much, their opinions on the situation would guide me towards making the right decision. They advised me to follow the engineering codes of ethics as closely as possible as to maintain my integrity as an engineer, as well as to ensure that the public receives the most accurate information possible, so that any and all support will be fully justified. I will stand by this advice moving forward to the best of my ability, because it comes from the people that raised me, the people that I trust the most when it comes to differentiating between right and wrong.

FINAL ETHICAL DECISIONS

After lots of careful consideration, I have decided on the best course of actions based on the guide of engineering codes of ethics, case studies, and the opinions of those that matter most to me. From this point forward, my team’s focus will be largely centered around portraying entirely accurate and truthful information to the public. This is obviously the most ethical decision in this case, because despite our desire to obtain as much public support as possible, it be unethical to do so by fabricating more appealing data. In regards to the environmental impact of the design, I have decided that the best course of action will be to stick with the current design, but make sure my team is particularly focused on making sure that we minimize the environmental impact of the materials and construction, and maximize the sustainability of the design. Lastly, the final and possibly most complicated decision that must be made is the choice between maglev and high speed rail. I have decided it would be best to express the most accurate comparison of the two to the public, and allow them to support whichever they find suits their best interest.As a maglev developer, I have full faith in the technology, and I believe that if portrayed with utmost accuracy we will have no problems gaining endorsement from the public.This is the most ethical choice because it maintains integrity and honesty as a top priority, which is my responsibility as an engineer. I fully recommend all engineers facing tough decisions to ensure that these are the top priority, because so long as that is the case there is a very strong chance that the correct ethical decision will be made.

REFERENCES

[1] “Code of Ethics” (2007, July) National Society of Professional Engineers (code of ethics)

[2] “Code of Ethics of Engineers” (2006, November 5) American Society of Mechanical Engineers (code of ethics)

[3] P. Eric (2013, November 19). “Japan Pitches Its High Speed Train with an Offer to Finance” New York Times (online article)

[4] P. Eric (2014, July 8) “Japan Has High Hopes for Floating Trains” Wall Street Journal – Eastern Edition (online article)

[5] M. Leever (2005) “Estimating Travel Demand for a New Light Rail Transit System” Ethics Education Library (case study)

ADDITIONAL SOURCES

D. Murphy-Medley (2001) “Small Municipality Development Strategies from a Sustainability Perspective” Online Ethics Center for Engineering and Science (case study)

S. Sudler (2013, February 21) “Public Health and Safety- Scaffolding for Highway Ramp” National Society of Professional Engineers (case study)

K. Biedenweg (2013) “The Importance of Teaching Ethics of Sustainability” Emerald Insight (online article)

C. Gupta (2015, February) “Measuring and Evaluating Sustainability: Ethics in Sustainability Indexes” Journal of Industrial Ecology (online article)

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my writing instructor Josh Lapekas for the guidance he provided me throughout the duration of writing this paper. I would also like to thank my engineering professor Daniel Budny for being a true inspiration for success. Additionally, I would like to thank Brian Maher, my peer, for helping me review my essay and improve where necessary.