Passenger Trains > NMRX "Rail Robber"

ABQ JOURNAL SUBSCRIPTION REQUIRED

"URL: http://www.abqjournal.com/opinion/guest_columns/192225521139opinionguestcolumns04-19-10.htm

Monday, April 19, 2010
Halt Rail Robber in Its Pricey Tracks
By Mark Mathis
Media Consultant and Film Producer

We've been railroaded!

The New Mexico Rail Runner may be the biggest boondoggle ever dumped on the taxpayers of this state. It's an ill-conceived, unnecessary "mass transit" system that serves a tiny fraction of the state's population for an obscenely high price. We can — and must — stop this train in its tracks.

To refresh our collective memory, the Rail Runner is the brain(less) child of Gov. Bill Richardson. The governor was planning his run for the White House in 2008 and, therefore, was busy building his resume as a "green visionary." Without properly consulting legislators — or, apparently, historical data — Richardson went about buying trains and negotiating deals to purchase track. He sold the Rail Runner as a long-term solution to relieving traffic congestion on I-25 from Belen to Santa Fe.

He also told us we were getting the train for a bargain — only $122 million!

Since those early days of the proposed Rail Runner winding its way through rainbows and leaping unicorns, the governor's utopian vision has been derailed by a little thing called: Reality.

The diesel-fueled rail service (no, it's not powered by windmills) came in a little over budget — nearly four times what Richardson promised! Some legislators believe it actually cost more than the official number, $475 million.

Then there's the annual expense of running the train. In 2009 fares generated only $1.9 million out of a $21 million operating budget. That's right, the fares collected from riders covered only 9 percent of the total cost, making the Rail Runner one of the most heavily taxpayer subsidized rail lines in the world.

Put another way, when a rider plunks down $8 for a round trip from Albuquerque to Santa Fe, taxpayers pick up the rest of the ticket cost — $81.00!

One of the misleading arguments made by Rail Runner proponents is that, "No mass transit system in the world makes money." A more accurate statement is, "All mass transit systems hemorrhage taxpayer dollars."

But in some cases it's necessary.

I've ridden the Metro in Washington DC, the New York Subway, the Tube in London, the Tokyo train system and many others and enjoyed them all. The trains in these large, densely populated cities are a necessity because the cost of operating the system is far less than the loss of function and productivity without them.

The Rail Runner misses this basic cost/benefit requirement by a country mile, a dozen city blocks and 15 whistle stops.

By the Department of TransportationÃ�Â's accounting, the state could have added a lane in each direction on I-25 between Albuquerque and Santa Fe and built it at half the cost of the Rail Runner with much smaller ongoing maintenance costs. Havng these additional lanes would have done far more to decrease congestion, reduce commute times and save fuel.

The Rail Robber is a bad deal for everyone, except for the one-out-of-500 citizens who regularly use the train. For those who claim the train is an investment in the stateÃ�Â's future, think again. The Rail Robber will always suck massive amounts of money from taxpayers with very little benefit because the Central New Mexico corridor will not have anywhere near the population base to justify an "essential" commuter system — not in 10 years or 50 or 100.

OK, so what should we do?

The very difficult, yet fiscally sane solution is to stop throwing good money after bad. The system should be shut down and the assets sold off. It would be painful to take the loss in investment, but the alternative is worse. Who wants to throw away another $250 to $300 million over the next decade?

While there will be great resistance to this idea, it can be done. I know it, because I've fought this kind of lunacy before.

Back in 2001, state and government officials told us we needed a new area code, and Albuquerque and Santa Fe would be the ones to get it. I formed the "505 Coalition" with the goal of stopping this nonsense.

With great public pressure, we not only stopped the new area code for many years by forcing practical number conservation, we also reversed the ruling. So when a new area code was added, the large urban areas kept the 505.

We can do the same thing with the Rail Runner.

Let's show Governor Richardson and state leaders we are sick of our tax dollars being squandered on non-solutions. We'll save millions every year and send a message to Santa Fe that we will not be railroaded again."

> "All mass transit systems hemorrhage taxpayer dollars."
>
> But in some cases it's necessary.
>
> I've ridden the Metro in Washington DC, the New York Subway, the Tube
> in London, the Tokyo train system...

==============================================

Perhaps the fallacy here is the assumption that Washington DC is itself "necessary." <G>

Along the same lines, I'd really like to know when my car will be profitable.

I've read that the average car costs the owner close to $10,000/year when all costs are considered. But people are willing to pay for Happy Motoring as we all know.

korotaj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've read that the average car costs the owner
> close to $10,000/year when all costs are
> considered. But people are willing to pay for
> Happy Motoring as we all know.

And well worth it to get where to want to go when you want to go. The New Mexico thing is a complete waste of money. If New Mexicans want to pay for it, fine.

These sorts of "political commentaries" are largely driven by motives that have nothing to do with the costs involved, but more as retribution against some "other political figure.

I have ridden the railrunner and found it to be one of the best of all of the so-called "rapid transit" systems in the country. It is more a commuter rail system much like Metra or the Long Island Railroad; comfortable, quiet and efficient.

One of the biggest reason for the system is the state capital is in Santa Fe and the average government worker simply cannot afford to live there so the highways were clogged with commuters from the south. The railrunner alleviates all that and on a holiday, which is one of the days I rode north from ABQ, it is FULL of day trippers. We went north just before Christmas at around 10am and returned about 6pm and nearly the same crowd was on both trains. Maybe They should factor the tourist dollars into the "equation"

I recall the same sort of blather about BART and the Los Angeles system which I have both found to be important parts of a complicated transportation system...and their costs are also called "outrageous".

These naysayers are the same extremists that carp about paying taxes for schools when their kids are grown, or if they have no kids.

To them, I say, "just shut", up and take your "politics" out of the public dialogue.

a737flyer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>To them, I say, "just shut", up and take your "politics" out of the public dialogue.

With respect, when you're discussing the spending of public funds the authorization comes through the legislative (political) process. If you'd really like to take politics out of it, the easiest way would be simply to remove the public funds and instead sell stock in a transportation company instead. As long as we are discussing taxpayer funded improvements, part of the the cost of those funds is "politics" in public dialogue.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/20/10 09:39 by hazegray.

Perhaps the next time this "media consultant and film producer" asks for public support for his filming (road closures, etc.) and even public subsidy, someone should send him the bill.

hazegray Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> a737flyer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >To them, I say, "just shut", up and take your
> "politics" out of the public dialogue.
>
> With respect, when you're discussing the spending
> of public funds the authorization comes through
> the legislative (political) process. If you'd
> really like to take politics out of it, the
> easiest way would be simply to remove the public
> funds and instead sell stock in a transportation
> company instead. As long as we are discussing
> taxpayer funded improvements, part of the the cost
> of those funds is "politics" in public dialogue.

I guess I was not as clear as I should have been. It is to the naysayers...political columnists and political spinsters, and hacks in general that I say shut up. If the public does not like the way the legislature or other government bodies are spending their money, they have a viable option. Political commentaters have the floor and book no response. If they were to allow commentary on their commentary, their arguments would sink in taters.

a737flyer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> These sorts of "political commentaries" are
> largely driven by motives that have nothing to do
> with the costs involved, but more as retribution
> against some "other political figure.
>

The key is that Governor Richardson is mentioned twice in the article.

When Railrunner was being built, there was a vast amount of material of this sort that was spread around: trains will cause cancer, trains are dangerous, they deliberately set the speed at 79 to make the 75-mph highway look bad, drug dealers can now come from Albuquerque to Santa Fe (obviously they could not do so previously), no one will ride it but (paradoxically) congestion will be bad around stations, they use double-decker equipment to make cars look small and insignificant, etc. etc. All these arguments have come up regarding almost every new transit system in the country, starting with the original two (of modern times), Washington and BART.

This guy sounds like the young lad petitioner and his lady companion who, at Abq's Tea Party rally last week, wore red T-shirts lettered "STOP THE RAIL RUNNER.COM", signing up occasional supporters. His reply to my similar challenge, "no rail passenger system pays for itself", was "the RR fares are too low". I agreed. They are.
NMRX was shoehorned in, ala Robert Moses, by Richardson to enhance his political star. Unfortunately for him, his presidential, then cabinet position hopes got flushed. His "regime" has been riddled with---multi-million-dollar investment corruption, shady ways of dealing with NM's $600 mil deficit, legislative deafness, arrogance and crony favoritism.
Fortunately, the Gov's 2-term reign ends in November, and the Rail Runner route and feeder buses now busily serve half of NM's 2 million folks.
When all those bankrupt Californians discover us, RR will be there to serve us all, ending up costing WAY LESS than Metrolink, UTA Front Runner still a-building mostly new track, SLC south to Provo.
Also, Class 4, former ATSF/BNSF/now-NMDOT trackage, bought for RR at a bargain-basement price ($75 mil, 272 miles, Belen-Raton) is ready for future Rockies regional service, Denver to El Paso.

am hearing that the NM purchase of the line north ( or east )) of Lamy to the state line is
either in deep jeopardy or kaput due to finances

anyone have anything to the contrary?

Abqfoamer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NMRX was shoehorned in, ala Robert Moses, by
> Richardson to enhance his political star.

Its a bit over the top to compare Richardson to Robert Moses. A better comparison would be with former Governor Jesse Ventura who used his power to get the Hiawatha Light Rail Line done in Minneapolis.

After all, Robert Moses' actions ruined many urban neighborhoods. This did not happen with the Rail Runner. Additionally, Moses' highways, er excuse me, "parkways," contributed to the decline of mass transit in New York. The Rail Runner project is an effort to improve public transportation in NM.

While Richardson may have pushed for the Rail Runner to advance his political prospects, don't you think he also did so, because he genuinely believed it was a worthwhile project?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/20/10 18:33 by RuleG.

Rule G...I hope so.
After growing up on SI and reading about how Moses arrogantly rammed highways through NYC neighborhoods, never acknowledged Verrazano-Narrows Bridge workers at its '64 opening, I despise the nasty, hypocritical SOB.
He never learned to drive.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/20/10 20:01 by Abqfoamer.

Chief...Nothing new. Last I heard, BNSF lawyers were holding up the sale for unknown reasons.
That segment's sale price is $5 million, not a giant amount, these days, a 175-mile mega-bargain.
But, NM is broke.
We'll see.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 04/20/10 20:00 by Abqfoamer.

There will always be a bloc of pundits, politicians, voters, talking heads, bloggers, columnists, and others who will generally be against passenger rail (almost always suggesting it's OK in the big city, but not here in hicksville). I hear it quite often where I live, along with the notion that they don't like being "forced" out of their cars. Of course, they don't seem to comprehend the fact that if that argument is valid, so is the opposite, that they are forcing people "into" cars (all arguments are perfect 360 degree shapes....it's just that sometimes both sides don't occupy an equal 180 degrees).

I suppose the political wind might blow in this guy's direction one day, but right now it doesn't seem to be that way. Even with the economic pressures being felt, there is significant interest in passenger rail, especially at local and regional levels. This isn't new. These jurisdictions have been working on some of these projects for a decade, sometimes a couple of decades. Guys like this, stomping their feet and throwing fits, are probably not going to change things all that much.

I admit that I am not familiar with the urban planning of the area, so I don't know how Rail Runner fits into that scheme. I do assume that there is, at a minimum, some sort of regional goal in terms where people are going to live, work, entertain themselves, etc. To do that, they have to get around. Urban planning is a long term project. Often, it takes two or three decades to see any results. If the only measure is short term, it will always appear to fail. If the only measure is bottom line dollars, it will appear to fail. Yes, as soon as I mention "intangibles", I'm sure the "bias police" will charge me with "liberalism". That seems to be how we do things these days. What's in it for me now. To hell with the future (regardless of what people say in public these days).

Warren...Every day, 97-mile-long Rail Runner serves the Middle Rio Grande Valley of NM, home to about one million folks, connecting urban/suburban Albuquerque-Belen with the Santa Fe area. Mostly four-lane, crowded, I-25 is the only through connecting highway.

The NMDOT-owned line travels on former ATSF/BNSF rails through five Native American, farmland-prominent pueblos along the Rio Grande, then runs down the I-25 median to connect with the Santa Fe Southern Railroad into SFe. This 18-mile excursion/occasional freight spur from Lamy Junction was the only part of ATSF serving the railroad's namesake city.

The major urban areas are growing. Due to high real estate prices around NM's capital-city, many people now reside in high-growth Rio Rancho near Abq, and commute to their state office jobs in SFe. Key weekday station lots are jammed. RR's opening in July 2006 prompted the growth of feeder bus networks at almost all stops, in a large state not known for much public transit.

Long a national artsy tourist destination, Santa Fe has experienced a significant business jump since RR came to town in late 2008, especially retail/restaurants serving Abq day-trippers.
The city has overseen the Railyards Redevelopment District surrounding the preserved ATSF depot, featuring eateries, shops, a farmers market, art studios/galleries.

RR fares are very low compared to other commuter lines. The state keeps rates low because of NM's traditionally low wages. A round-trip ticket, Belen-SFe, runs $8, 194-miles.

There might be a local revolution, though, if Rail Runner ever shut down.

If the principal purpose of the Rail Runner is to move government employees to their place of work at what the paper describes as an extremely obscene amount of money, why not move their jobs closer to the people who do the work?

Not everybody can live like Jane Fonda and other zillionaire residents of Santa Fe. So, move the government offices to place(s) where real people live. Let them walk to work, if they want. Why cluster all the jobs in a difficult to reach, expensive place, with no housing for real people? The bosses can drive to Santa Fe once in a while on the now empty highways.

has the rail runner taken cars off of i-25 so that it is NOTICEABLY less crowded???

66

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Not everybody can live like Jane Fonda and other
> zillionaire residents of Santa Fe.

It is a myth that Santa Fe is a town for the wealthy. Its per capita income is well below the national average and its poverty level is about average.