Passenger Trains > "State study: We're stuck with Rail Runner"

ABQJournal link
 "SANTA FE – When it comes to New Mexico and the Rail Runner Express, it appears the train has left the station.A study unveiled Wednesday by the state Department of Transportation says selling the commuter train isn’t feasible and switching to a commuter bus service running between Belen and Santa Fe would not be a huge budget-saver....."

Maybe the state could send Governor Richardson the bill for his handiwork...

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe the state could send Governor Richardson the
> bill for his handiwork...

Really? And who should new jersey send its bill to along the same line of thinking? ;)

All we can do is pray for $200/barrel crude oil, $25/MMBtu natural gas, a gold strike under Santa Fe Plaza and politicians without an eye on the White House.

Christie, Corzine, McGreevey, (nd all the acting govs), Whitman, etc all the way back to William Franklin...

So should we just shut down all train service in this country? Sounds like that is what is being said here...
Since it all costs, maybe we should just dump ALL forms of transportation starting with trains, which is what the republicans seem to want.

Bill Deaver
Tehachapi, CA

That's because running it isn't that expensive.  It's paying for building it.  And that cost goes on regardless of whether it runs or not.

A couple of telling snips from the article:

... the Rail Runner has an average of 3,596 boardings per weekday, or 163 riders per train trip.

The total operating cost of the bus service would be nearly $15 million annually, compared with the $26.8 million for the Rail Runner.

... replacing the Rail Runner with commuter bus service along the state’s highly populated Rio Grande corridor – from south of Albuquerque to Santa Fe – would require the purchase of at least 50 buses, the DOT study said. It would take 89 one-way bus trips to replicate the 22 Rail Runner trips ...

“We’re finding out that despite all the difficulties we’ve had, we’re probably going to have to love each other,” Sen. John Arthur Smith, D-Deming, told a legislative hearing Wednesday at the state Capitol. “We have too much invested in it now that we can’t divorce.”

“There’s no private investor, in my opinion, that would go and buy this,” said Sen. Clemente Sanchez, D-Grants. “I sure as heck wouldn’t.”

Rep. Rick Little, R-Chaparral, appeared resigned to being saddled with future Rail Runner costs. “We’ve got something we’re just stuck with, it sounds like,” Little said.
 

This NM exercise is as stupid had Massachusetts decided to study whether to shut down the Boston Central Artery because the one mile road tunnel wound up costing $16 Billion (with several subsequent tunnel collapses after opening) while Massachusetts will pay debt service on it for many years to come.

The costs are sunk, and there is no point in crying over spilled milk and shutting it down.

The original project was Agenda based and the current administration should be commended for not just dumping it on an Agenda based decision.

However, I wonder how the bus option was evaluated.  Buses have an obvious advantage.  The can go closer to where people get on and off.
They can adapt to shifts in population or new destinations. You do not necessarily just use buses to do exactly the same thing the rail option does.
That is a one sided evaluation.

As far as sunk costs and cost of new  buses, that rail equipment and ROW condition will not not last forever.

Bob Jordan

 

Lurch_in_ABQ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All we can do is pray for $200/barrel crude oil,
> $25/MMBtu natural gas, a gold strike under Santa
> Fe Plaza and politicians without an eye on the
> White House.

I'll pray with you for the gold strike and politicians without the eye on the WH, but I won't pray with you for the rest.

< As far as sunk costs and cost of new  buses, that rail equipment and ROW condition will not not last forever. >

3 buses are needed to replace each rail car. The rail car will last 2 to 3 times as long. That is a factor 6 or 9.
A loco is needed for every 2 or 3 rail cars and can last twice as long as a bus.
The fact is commuter buses are routed where they can make the best time, not down subdivision streets.
Rail attracts development, residential and commercial. Buses do neither.

 

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> < As far as sunk costs and cost of new  buses,
> that rail equipment and ROW condition will not not
> last forever. >
>
> 3 buses are needed to replace each rail car. The
> rail car will last 2 to 3 times as long. That is a
> factor 6 or 9.
> A loco is needed for every 2 or 3 rail cars and
> can last twice as long as a bus.
> The fact is commuter buses are routed where they
> can make the best time, not down subdivision
> streets.
> Rail attracts development, residential and
> commercial. Buses do neither.
>
>  


More buses is a mixed bag. 
I rode a flex bus from Woodinville, WA to downtown Seattle.
Yes you needed more buses but one could do local route next express  and the next
would turn around earlier on another route.    Right they don't go down subdivisions
but they can go closer.  Off peak you may only need one bus.  Weekends buses can
be used for other purposes and you probably need less than a full train.

But my point was rail has advantages, buses have others. If you study, and I don't
know that is what they did, buses to do exactly what the rail did then you are likely
to find rail an advantage. 

Bob



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/05/15 12:46 by robj.

Given the labor costs that went in to build this, and the low value to be obtained by selling off the equipment and rail, they could hardly make any other decision. Leaving the wisdom of doing this in the first place aside, as one legislator said they are stuck with this operation. True. 

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe the state could send Governor Richardson the bill for his handiwork...

Send the bill to the voters of NM who allowed this to be built... you get the government you deserve, and they have. 

hazegray Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lackawanna484 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Maybe the state could send Governor Richardson
> the bill for his handiwork...
>
> Send the bill to the voters of NM who allowed this
> to be built... you get the government you deserve,
> and they have. 

New Mexico is one of the net receiving states when it comes to taxes paid to and benefits received from the federal government.  Maybe  Bill just figured the feds would pick up the cost eventually.

prrmpup Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Given the labor costs that went in to build this,
> and the low value to be obtained by selling off
> the equipment and rail, they could hardly make any
> other decision. Leaving the wisdom of doing this
> in the first place aside, as one legislator said
> they are stuck with this operation. True. 

and stuck with the coming balloon payments.

Balloon payments occur whether the trains run or not.

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Balloon payments occur whether the trains run or
> not.

Of course. Did you think I was implying otherwise?

I think we should give up on the receiving states things as far as taxes and Federal Spending.  As as been noted there are so many factors involved in that calculation.
Fedeal lands, Military bases etc etc..............................  At any rate even if your HQ is in California and your plant is in Oregon it doesn't mean you don't derive some of your profit from
New Mexico.

As far as business practice is it sound to base current decisions based on poor past investments?
I should have hung on to my Vega in the 70's since I still owned money on it.  No offence to the Vega.

Bob