Rail Runner Thread (Santa Fe, Bernalillo: school, community college, taxi)

[yukon]

I'd love to take the RR to SF on Saturday....unfortunately, the afternoon return trip arrives downtown about 5 minutes before the last city bus leaves on my route...about 6:00 pm. Doesn't do me any good to go to SF if I can't get back home from downtown ABQ. I blame ABQ Ride for that one. Stopping Saturday service at 6:00 pm is ridiculous. Have to wonder how many other riders like me can't use the RR service on Saturday because of timing issues.

[Burquebinder]

^You should send MRCOG/RR an email about this issue.

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by Mike Horrell

Saw that in the paper a day or so ago.

Sooner or later Rail Runner either has to become reasonably self-supporting or
the cities and the state are going to have to make a strategic commitment to its
subsidy; one that is high enough to keep it running even during severe budget cuts.

good points. We were still there when they opened, it seemed like the answer to so many problems, but like mass transits and Amtrac, they either government has to support the system or it can't keep running. Almost everywhere in the country with the exception of the bay area in Ca and the East coast rapid transit struggles. Why, we are a car driven (pardon the pun) country.

Nita

[abqdwell]

Should we also make roads pay for themselves? BTW: federal government pays 90 percent of highway costs not to mention large military force needed to sustain access to Middle East oil.

[mortimer]

Originally Posted by Burquebinder

... the amount of govt subsidy going into roads such as I-25 dwarf that
of the Rail Runner. Consider that highways provide no cash returns

Roads, in general, are funded. They are funded by the
tax everybody pays on gasoline. That's not a "subsidy."

As I have stated over and over, the Railrunner was not funded.

There should have been a slice of gasoline tax added to the
current tax and that should have been the funding. Instead,
the state just used money that was lying around.

Yes, just lying around. There was a big oil/gas revenue rush and
it was just spent, instead of invested as it should have been.
I don't mean "invested" by spending money on stuff, but invested
in something that returns more money forever that can be counted
on. Now, we face cutbacks in mass transit service unless we ask
for a new tax on gas.

A higher price on gas would discourage driving to Santa Fe and
encourage conservation by car-pooling and usuing the Railrunner.

That's not going to happen now because times are not flush any more.

It seems the Gov. didn't ever read the Grasshopper and the Ant story
when he was a tot.

[Mike Horrell]

The reliable funding issue Mortimer outlines is critical. No reliable funding means
a limited lifespan for any project or service because sooner or later some other
interest that accumulates more influence will siphon off the money for its own,
"more important", use.

That's already happening with Rail Runner. Money is being withdrawn.

[abqdwell]

From Who Pays for Highways?

"To reiterate something I said yesterday, the idea that road spending is entirely paid for by the gasoline tax is simply mistaken... The analysis indicates that in the US current tax and fee payments to the government by motor-vehicle users fall short of government expenditures related to motor-vehicle use by approximately 20–70 cents per gallon of all motor fuel. (Note that in this accounting we include only government expenditures; we do not include any "external" costs of motor-vehicle use.)."

--
BTW: I do agree with raising the New Mexico gasoline tax for the reason Mortimer mentions, plus it will encourage wiser development. We are kidding ourselves if we think we'll be paying $3 in 10 years.

[Burquebinder]

Mortimer & Mike Horrell,

I agree the Rail Runner needs reliable funding. I will add to ABQdwell's point and mention that last year 70 billion of highway funding was subsidized by non-users, which amounts to about 50% of total highway dollars.

Link: Subsidyscope.com — Transportation: Analysis Finds Shifting Trends in Highway Funding: User Fees Make Up Decreasing Share

Highways do have a reliable, subsidized funding structure while transit projects generally do not - I would argue this needs to change.

[JBM]

Originally Posted by Burquebinder

Mortimer & Mike Horrell,

I agree the Rail Runner needs reliable funding. I will add to ABQdwell's point and mention that last year 70 billion of highway funding was subsidized by non-users, which amounts to about 50% of total highway dollars.


Highways do have a reliable, subsidized funding structure while transit projects generally do not - I would argue this needs to change.

I concur! However I doubt that this will happen. They need to increase revenue, which in general requires new taxes. I doubt imposing new taxes would help with everyone struggling enough as it is. I like the idea of raising the gas tax, even if just a penny. Europe did that a long time ago, and it seemed to pay off. Although, I don't know if I'd like paying 8 bucks a litre or whatever the price is now.

[mortimer]

Originally Posted by abqdwell

... US current tax and fee payments to the government by motor-vehicle
users fall short of government expenditures ... e by approximately 20–70 cents per gallon of all motor fuel.

20-70 cents?

Heck, thats lost in the noise of regular price fluctuations.
That's a huge variation, based on daily US consumption just of gasoline,
(378 million gallons/day) that's an annual revenue shortfall of either
$28 billion or $97 billion that has to be subsidized.

Burquebinder's $70 billion number fits right in there.
We'll use that then.

Any consumption on our part hurts those that export petroleum
and, naturally, I'm all for it since they don't like us.

Originally Posted by abqdwell

We are kidding ourselves if we think we'll be paying $3 in 10 years.

Oh you optimists.

I think you have your "3" and your "10" reversed.
It's all dependent on the "International Reserve Status" of the dollar.
The price of gasoline in gold will be either stable or go down though.

Originally Posted by JBM

I don't know if I'd like paying 8 bucks a litre or whatever the price is now.

Baby.

It hit $10/gallon in Europe when it was $4 here.
If it were $10/gallon here, think of how clear the roads would be.

If the tax were raised by 10 cents/gallon every three months, no one
would notice at the pumps.

If it were billed as a national security and roads building measure then
many who oppose any and all fuel taxes might have an easier time
with it. If it were concurrently put into effect with a reduction in
Federal income taxes then even more people would like it.