Maglev provides national economic and social benefits.

Wheel/rail vehicle manufacturers are naturally interested in the highest possible earnings from maintenance and upkeep. From a national economic point of view, in contrast, the least possible expenditure for maintenance and repair of mechanical parts is more desirable. Low maintenance costs make an essential contribution to economical mobility. For maglev systems, which are always levitated, even at the highest speeds, and do not make contact with their guideways, low maintenance costs are typical. In this sense, using maglev systems are advantageous from an economic point of view.

For wheel/rail manufacturers and companies, the unavoidable wear and tear involved in a wheel/rail system is a very interesting effect from an entrepreneurial viewpoint: it’s an effect that guarantees consistent high turnover, or sales. Infrastructure elements and vehicles must be kept in running order with replacement parts and intensive maintenance, so the higher the driving speed, the higher the abrasion from wheel-rail contact – and also the higher the profits. It is a truism that vehicle manufacturers achieve higher profits in the rapid-transit sector from maintenance than from the sale of vehicles.

Maglev systems are practically abrasion-free in operation and therefore offer relatively low expenditures for maintenance. They are also especially economical to operate. Companies that base their sales projections on maintenance, repairs and replacement parts sense one of the main advantages of the maglev train system -- low maintenance -- as an economic threat to their business and have been known to block the discussion on the use of maglev trains. From the viewpoint of an individual company, such a perspective is certainly understandable. However, from a general social and future-oriented viewpoint, such obstructions are economically questionable, if not actually damaging.

For all transport infrastructure projects, it is of fundamental importance that long-term social orientation increases and the corresponding objective cost-benefit comparisons are made as the basis of future decisions rather than the short-term profit motives of the established wheel/rail manufacturing sector. Transport infrastructures affect living spaces for many decades afterwards; future generations will carry the social and financial burden of the today’s decisions made to build relatively inefficient and uneconomical structures.

Even when projects in transport infrastructure continue to be tested on a case-by-case basis to decide which technology should be put to use, maglev systems can often offer a qualitatively superior solution when subjected to an objective cost-benefit comparison.