Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Since 2001, when a tax for the rail line won approval, the area along the line has experienced $3.5 billion in private investment and about $1.5 billion in public investment, according to Phoenix’s Community and Economic Development Department."
About $70,000,000 per mile. It will cost the city $184,000,000 million to operate over the next five years with fares covering $44,000,000.
And taxpayers having to come up with the remaining $140,000,000 (over a five year period?) which is $28,000,000 per year?
But Albuquerque is not Phoenix, Mesa and Tempe... But we do have the Rail Runner!
"Will Albuquerque Live Up to it's Potential?" do we want to try it that way?
Show me a rail line that will generate development anywhere you put it.
The argument is whether a rail line will improve Central Avenue. Central
Avenue is arguably, the most economically vibrant area in Albuquerque already.
If you were to plop a rail line going from the North end of Eubank to the South
end, it would probably do nothing. A metal road and metal wheels mean nothing.
I'm all for a rail line that will improve the city. How about a rail line that is FAST? A rail line
down Central would not improve transit for riders as compared to a bus. How do I benefit
from getting on at 5th and Gold and riding to Carlisle and Central when you compare a
new train to the old bus? If it takes the same amount of time, what do I gain?
I ride that stretch. I use the bus. What do I gain ( or don't actual riders count? ).
A FAST rail line from downtown Rio Rancho that only stopped a couple of times
and got people from one end to the other in only 20 minutes would improve
many people's lives AND generate the development people are always touting.
Why would anyone want to put the track down Central? Why not pick a line
that actually benefitted riders and commuters? Why not pick a line that compels
people to use it in leu of their automobile? In Albuquerque, river crossings are a big deal. Why not try to solve a problem instead of building a trophy?
Another thing that has not come up in the discussion, is F-U-N-D-I-N-G.
As everyone knows, all transit must be subsidized. Where is that money coming from?
Everyone knows where I think it should come from.
I would have been all for the Railrunner had it been funded. Now, it is at the mercy
of the economic winds. If things get bad enough, to balance the State budget the
Railrunner might be completely shut down. If it's a choice between pensions and
butts on the seats, guess who wins?
I'm guessing that you mean financial numbers like the claimed amount of development around a line or cost per butt in the seat ( subsidy ) or fuel costs per mile. It could be a jillion things, so a more specific question would help.
I don't, but you can find, twist, fabricate numbers to sho what you want.
Over $200,000 was spent by the city of Albuquerque for a study to find the feasability of a "Street Car" on Central. I think that was 2007. Before that more money was spent on studying it. At one final point, maybe still 2007, the City Council of Albuquerque voted the "Street Car" project away...
Sorry, I tried to follow it, this is a massive project, there are so many ways to screw up and the fighting and arguing gave me a headache...
They could run the street car down gold or coal. Also one North and south along edith or University. Freeways/Highways don't pay for themselves either. For Transit oriented development look at Orenco Station, Intel moved near there, Fruitvale in Oakland, Walnut Creek in CA, Gresham, OR Outlet malls, stops along Marta in Atlanta. Untill then I guess we're happy to have no alternatives. People complain about the Rail Runner being subsidized, but NM did something that TX or CA have been trying to build, but can't for some reason. In the decade since 2000, miles driven in Portland have remained the same for ten years, what does that mean? Less congestion.
What we're fighting about is just building one line here. We can't even get a backbone. Transit improves areas 1/4 mile around a station. Albuquerque has the population density in the older parts of the city. Hell we can build bridges over rivers, does that pay for itself? The Bosque does that pay for itself? Since when is Government a business? I guess until then we'll have to live with the Albuquerque we have and work within the system to improve or maintain Albuquerque.
Albuquerque has some great things going for it - sunshine, mild temperatures, few destructive natural forces (except lightning-started brush/forest/bosque fires), nearby open spaces and mountain terrain. However, there are some major obstacles to "reaching it's potential" in terms of modernization and healthy planned growth.
First, is the the lack of water. If we cannot provide enough water for the population and industry, they will never come. As water becomes more scarce, industry departs and people follow. We've already maxed out the water supply, and that is after tapping the river system.
Second, is the presence of immovable boudaries. We are surrounded by mountains, a military base, and indian reservations. Fortunately, they have prevented excessive sprawl.
Third, is insufficient population with discretionary income. We don't have enough people who make enough money to pay for much beyond food, housing, transportation, clothing and simple recreation. Cost of living may be slightly lower than U.S. average, but per capita income is significantly lower. There just isn't enough money available to do anything substantial.
Fourth, is low education levels. Sure, there are pockets of highly-educated people with some money to spare, but most of them are already gainfully employed, many working for the government or self-employed. There is a severe lack of educated, responsible, hard-working, teachable people to hire. I know - I had trouble finding employees capable of enough simple critical thinking to enable them to work without constant supervision. If businesses can't find good employees, they won't locate here. There is a reason why the "big, new employers" coming to town are usually call centers - the training is minimal, everything is scripted, and they can shut down with very little loss of capital.
Fifth, is incompetant and downright corrupt politicians. There is very little incentive for an honest company to start here - the "good ol' boy" network is alive and flourishing here. Honest marketing and bidding will not even get you in many of the doors. One example is that minority advantages are extended to Hispanics - even though they are the majority population. Makes sense, though, since most of the politicians, corrupt and otherwise, are Hispanic.
There is one more good thing about Albuquerque - it isn't El Paso.
First, is the the lack of water. If we cannot provide enough water for the population and industry, they will never come. As water becomes more scarce, industry departs and people follow. We've already maxed out the water supply, and that is after tapping the river system.
Albuquerque's water situation isn't near as bad as it's made out to be. NM still uses very little of its allotment of the Colorado River basin, and that's water Albuquerque can and will get at in the event water shortages start to happen.
Places like Atlanta and Los Angeles are far worse off, and yet look at Atlanta & LA grow.
Quote:
Second, is the presence of immovable boudaries. We are surrounded by mountains, a military base, and indian reservations. Fortunately, they have prevented excessive sprawl.
Not sure how much stock is worth putting in on this count either; Phoenix has similar constraints and yet in its unchecked directions it has grown; Albuquerque could similarly grow west for a dozen miles and yet it hasn't.
Quote:
Fifth, is incompetant and downright corrupt politicians. There is very little incentive for an honest company to start here
The transparency of the local political system isn't factored that high in the list of a major corporation's site criteria; in fact, some crookeder political systems will bend the rules more to attract industry.
ABQ has grown west by a huge extent over the last 30 yrs... Coors used to be then end of the city in the early 80's. Not to mention Bernaillo used to stop at the east bank of the Rio Grande.. Coronado State Monument was all by it's lonesome on the west side.
NM political corruption is now worse then Louisiana (where I lived for 20 yrs).. Ever hear of Gov Edwin Edwards?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
