Passenger Trains > NM HM 127 Study ongoing costs of Railrunner

A bill in the NM House of Representatives requests the NM DOT "study the long-term operational and maintenance costs of the Rail Runner to state and local governments, and the benefits and feasibility of selling the state's ownership of Rail Runner infrastructure."

The information presented in House Memorial 127 includes the following:

* The Rail Runner replaced a commuter bus service that charged $3 per ticket and took one-hour to get from ABQ to Santa Fe with a train that charges $9 per ticket and takes 1-1/2 hours.

*From 2006 through 2015 the state has spent over $225,000,000 to purchase the track, the train cars and other equipment and facilities for the Rail Runner

* The debt service payments for the remaining bond debt for the rail runner are currently costing between $28,000,000 and $29,000,000 annually and equal approximately 55% of the NM DOT's construction budget.

* The current Rail Runner bond debt is structured to require balloon payments of over $110,000,000 in fiscal year 2025 and in fiscal year 2026.

* When the state of New Mexico completes payment on the Rail Runner bond debt in fiscal year 2027, it will have
paid well over $700,000,000 for the equipment and infrastructure for this commuter train.

* The fiscal year 2015 operating budget for the Rail Runner is nearly $27,000,000, of which just under $5,000,000 comes from ticket revenue and contributions from the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railway and Amtrak for use of the track.

* The nearly $22,000,000 in remaining annual operating costs are government subsidies, including over $13,500,000 in local gross receipts taxes and over $8,250,000 in federal grant funds (which may be reduced or disappear in the future).

* Neither the projection for the bond debt nor the annual operating budget for the Rail Runner includes the costs
incurred by the NM DOT for the periodic replacement of rolling stock and other equipment.

* In FY 2014 there was a $600,000,000 funding gap between available NM DOT funding and maintenance and construction needs.

At the conclusion of the introductory material, the memorial requests the NM DOT "study the costs to the state and to local governments of maintaining and operating the Rail Runner over the next twenty years; the feasibility of selling the track, rolling stock and other Rail Runner assets currently owned by the state; and the potential benefits of replacing the Rail Runner with a reestablished commuter bus service." It requests that the study be completed and reported to the appropriate legislative committee by November 15, 2015.

The memorial was schedule to heard in committee today. If passed in committee, it would go to the House floor for approval. If passed by the NM House; no action is required by the NM Senate.

Link:
http://www.nmlegis.gov/lcs/legislation.aspx?Chamber=H&LegType=M&LegNo=127&year=15

Railroads, freight and passenger, are pretty much conveyor belts or horizontal elevators. What they do best is haul large volumes of freight or passengers. Population: Albuquerque-556,495, Rio Rancho-91,956, Santa Fe-69,976 (Wikipedia). Not really a metropolitan area. And, (anecdotal), it's a region where everyone has a pickup truck. It's going to be an ongoing problem for the Railrunner.

Lets not exaggerate in the negative. The Albuquerque/Santa Fe area population is 1.163 million. Yep, It's not LA or NY but it's not that small either. When I rode the service from Santa Fe to Albuquerque the train was full and too long for most platforms. It was probably carrying 400-500 people. Much more than a bus load. The numbers in the article are just overstated to satisfy the negatories who want the trains stopped. Here in Texas the house is taking up a bill to stop all Federal funds that are to be used for rail transit projects. It's just a Republican thing I guess. If the service is losing that much money then they need new management. There is no way it loses that much.

Cumbresfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> * The debt service payments for the remaining bond
> debt for the rail runner are currently costing
> between $28,000,000 and $29,000,000 annually and
> equal approximately 55% of the NM DOT's
> construction budget.
>
> * The current Rail Runner bond debt is structured
> to require balloon payments of over $110,000,000
> in fiscal year 2025 and in fiscal year 2026.
>
> * When the state of New Mexico completes payment
> on the Rail Runner bond debt in fiscal year 2027,
> it will have
> paid well over $700,000,000 for the equipment and
> infrastructure for this commuter train.

Looks like the Muni Bond dealers and bond holders are making out like bandits here.

I spent quite a bit of time in Santa Fe in 2007-2008 when the Railrunner line down the middle of I-25 was being constructed. Discussion in the paper then was how much it was costing.

Once the line started operating it was disclosed that they have the lowest farebox recovery of any commuter operation there is. Therin lies a big part of the operating cost problem. It is a great ride, especially for government staff travelling between the Capitol in Santa Fe and various administrative offices in Albuquerque.

Will be interesting to see how this all plays out. Given the low price of crude oil, revenues from which provide a significant part on the NM budget, this could become a bigger issue.

The big problem, in my opinion, is that NM implemented heavy rail, not light rail service.

That meant the Road Runner cannot handle the grades needed to access Albuquerque Sun Port airport, the University of New Mexico, the main hospitals, the main commercial districts outside of the central core, etc.

The anemic nature of Albuquerque's downtown--in my opinion, not a lively shopping, restaurant or entertainment area--compounds the problem.

In other words, the Rail Runner was quite possibly doomed by poor planning or political decision making that chose the wrong proposal.

I believe the false assumption about the relative economy and travel times between bus and rail should be challenged:
The bus fare is keyed to operating costs only with nothing for the infrastructure of the highway they use. In most states government vehicle licenses are at almost no cost, they don't even pay what a private bus company does for the opportunity to use the highway. Also, the anti-tax movement has resulted in motor fuel taxes that utter fail to maintain the highway infrastructure.
The travel times are for the bus assume no congestion, which is not the case a peak times now and will not be the case in the future as the population of highway users increases and there is no investment in more highway infrastructure.
However the report is a sobering statement about plunging into projects just because we can.....
Comments?

So are they studying selling all equipment and scraping system or selling and have a private operator provide service for hopefully a reduced price?
Either way they spent the money to build and are stuck with the bill

Posted from iPhone

I second abyler. This comes down to banksters making a killing on debt. Farebox recovery and bus comparisons don't enter into it.
Muni bond dealers did the same thing to over 400 public school districts in California: Conned them into financing new facilities with usurious interest rates and an astounding balloon payment in 30 years. Railstiesballast is right when he say these things shouldn't be built just because they "can". What's the alternative? One idea is a non-profit state bank like North Dakota's which lends money for public projects at rates that are actually re-payable.

RRTom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I second abyler. This comes down to banksters
> making a killing on debt. Farebox recovery and
> bus comparisons don't enter into it.
> Muni bond dealers did the same thing to over 400
> public school districts in California: Conned them
> into financing new facilities with usurious
> interest rates and an astounding balloon payment
> in 30 years. Railstiesballast is right when he
> say these things shouldn't be built just because
> they "can". What's the alternative? One idea is
> a non-profit state bank like North Dakota's which
> lends money for public projects at rates that are
> actually re-payable.

Takes two to tango. A lot of people just conned themselves.

In my wildest imagination, I can't think of a good solution.

ts1457: It's immoral to knowingly induce a party into a bad deal. The perpetrators (muni bond dealers, politicians) should be made to pay, not the mass of taxpayers. That's the solution in these types of situations.

RRTom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ts1457: It's immoral to knowingly induce a party
> into a bad deal. The perpetrators (muni bond
> dealers, politicians) should be made to pay, not
> the mass of taxpayers. That's the solution in
> these types of situations.

This is "Richardson's Railroad" - he conned the Democratic-controlled legislature to build it back in 2003 and 2004 by using highway construction funds. It was no secret - the ABQ Journal editorial cartoonist did a number of cartoons from 2005 to 2011 showing the scam. The other part of it, and why Richardson was so determined to build it, was that he wanted to run for President in 2008 and this would be very useful to enhance his environmental resume. Of course in another ten years, the "chickens will come home to roost."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/18/15 08:12 by Cumbresfan.

---

px320 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I spent quite a bit of time in Santa Fe in
> 2007-2008 when the Railrunner line down the middle
> of I-25 was being constructed. Discussion in the
> paper then was how much it was costing.
>

The attached is a "fantasy" photo by the NM DOT advertising a public meeting on the RR which was under construction at the time (service to Santa Fe started mid-December 2008). It likely was for public input on station amenities and road-rail crossing plans (quiet zones).

---

RRTom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ts1457: It's immoral to knowingly induce a party into a bad deal. The perpetrators (muni bond
> dealers, politicians) should be made to pay, not the mass of taxpayers.

Immoral? When did THAT become a project selection criteria?

Actually, in the past posters on TO who have made similar arguments against poorly thought out and justified HSR (e.g., Florida demo project) were vilified as being negative. Are you saying those who advocated these projects were immoral?
Or does the fact that they didn't "knowingly" take these positions excuse their bad judgment?

Regarding Railrunner, I'd tell the residents of New Mexico who elected these politicians that "You bought it, you own it, you pay for it!"

If they are looking for more passengers, then "they" need to coordinate with their tourist commissions, and hotels. DH and I used the RR to travel between SF and ABQ a few years ago. About 15 minutes before the early afternoon departure, we saw several hotel shuttles pull up to drop off passengers for the train ride back. Having this travel option between ABQ and SF means tourists don't have to get rental cars and deal with the hassle of trying to find parking in downtown Santa Fe. It is too bad that it isn't an easy connection to the ABQ airport tho. But was it even feasible to run a Light rail system between SF and ABQ?

hazegray Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Regarding Railrunner, I'd tell the residents of
> New Mexico who elected these politicians that "You
> bought it, you own it, you pay for it!"

Tough talk there, hazegray. But if you are going to force the ones who voted for Richardson to pay, what about the ones who didn't vote for him?

The interest for this appears to be over 200% of the cost to implement the service. That's called usury. Some have said it's a sin that cries to Heaven for vengeance.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/18/15 10:01 by RRTom.

Questions of morality side, I am wondering if anyone has seen any data on the ridership density of the various parts of the line?

http://www.kob.com/article/stories/s3698073.shtml#.VQm9So7F_E4
Rail Runner's $1M 'ghost train' station remains unused, off map
4 Investigates questioned if $1 million was wasted on a shuttered Rail Runner station once designed for Lobo fans.
*
So, in essence, the platform has become a ghost train station providing service to a ghost train.
The platform does not appear in any Rail Runner literature, including a map of Rail Runner stops.
*
Families in Santa Fe have been questioning another 'ghost train station' -- the Rail Runner stop near Zia Road. It's remained closed ever since it was built.

TrainRidingGal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is too bad that it isn't an easy
> connection to the ABQ airport tho.

There is a free shuttle to and from the airport that is timed to train arrival in downtown ABQ. However, there is no weekend service.

> But was it
> even feasible to run a Light rail system between
> SF and ABQ?

No. The tracks used from Belen north are heavy rail and the new construction was only from the base of La Bajada Hill to Santa Fe.

Cumbresfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TrainRidingGal Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > But was it
> > even feasible to run a Light rail system
> between
> > SF and ABQ?
>
> No. The tracks used from Belen north are heavy
> rail and the new construction was only from the
> base of La Bajada Hill to Santa Fe.

I don't understand.

Light rail tracks parallel regular tracks in many systems. They would not have had to here had the planners and decision makers known that BNSF no longer wanted this line, but apparently that was not the case.

Of course not being able to use existing tracks increases costs, but light rail transit systems don't piggyback on existing heavy rail tracks at least not any I know.

Moreover, what good did it do saving money in this case if you don't take people to where they want to go?

That's the great sin of the current system and it will not be solved by merely running buses from Belem and Santa Fe to the Alvarado Transportation Center in downtown Albuquerque.