A backward look at train service to Santa Fe (tax, financing)

[domino]

I've got to agree with buses not being sexy. In New Orleans people don't think twice about hopping on a streetcar to avoid dealing with parking, but ask them to take a bus and they freak out! Streetcars are just so much more genteel.

[GregW]

Have you ever heard of a bus named Desire?

[Poncho_NM]

Originally Posted by GregW

I expect to use the Railrunner next time we visit. Save a couple of day’s car rental.

Come on down!!

I have not ridden it yet. I have been to the station. But It has been a schedule issue with my wife and I did not want to be on a packed train...


Rich

[Merlander]

Yes, we could really use sleek, modern, sexy "busses." It would do a lot to encourage ridership and promote the idea of mass transit. Not to mention not having to redo/replace/duplicate/replicate the existing transportation infrastructure. Making them run on electricity and/or solar would only add to the benefits. I like that idea, I really do.

No sympathy for the auto execs per Mort's comment. I feel sorry for the rank & file. GM really shot themselves in the foot when they torpedoed the EV-1.

Sony Pictures Classics Presents : Who Killed the Electric Car?

The trailer link is on the bottom of the page.

[catman]

Amtrak is okay, but it's hardly comparable to the hotels on rails that used to run all over the country. I would love to have been able to see the Rockies from one of those domed observation cars of old with a nice gin & tonic at hand. Those trains during the golden age of rail travel were splendid, classy with a capital C. Sometimes I think I was born too late!

[mpgerber]

As of July 2009, this is my assessment of the Rail Runner system:

Roughly current data:

1. 4,000 rides per day. Let's be nice and assume that's 2,000 riders (i.e. - commuters...the specific target for mass transit).
2. Average ticket price is +/- $4.00 each way.
3. $400 million capital investment already spent.
4. $20 million per annum operating costs (estimated....we know how that goes)
5. Very difficult to calculate how many vehicles travel paralell to railrunner on I25, between the various stops and zones.
6. Nobody lives within walking distance of one of these stations.
7. Almost nobody here uses a bicycle in their commute patterns.

Whatever the case, if we assume that there are 2,000 riders per day, and we'll just go with a 7 day week, that means we (local taxpayers) are paying $10,000 for each rider, per year, to get them to ride this train. That's approx. $27 a day. Add the $8 worth of fare for the actual rider.

My Questions:

a. Is this a good investment?
b. Does it make sense in our sparsely populated location?
c. On average, how many miles does the Rail Runner commuter drive, in their car, to get to a Rail Runner station?
d. How many people does the $20 million operating budget employ?
e. How do these people get to work?
f. What is the emissions/rider from one of these diesel locomotives, when pulling a just a few passenger cars?
g. Can we believe that environmental life cycle cost of building and operating this rail system is preferable to the emissions from the 2,000 vehicles supposedly removed from I-25?

My wife and I just moved back here from Chicago. In Chicago, I commuted 6 miles each way on a bike. My wife rode the train....with many, many, many other people.

[Zoidberg]

Originally Posted by mpgerber

My Questions:

a. Is this a good investment?

Depends on who you ask. So far I think yes. Equal number of no's out there I'm sure. The investment has already been made; the time for debate on whether it should have been built at all has passed.

b. Does it make sense in our sparsely populated location?

Again, depends on who you ask.

c. On average, how many miles does the Rail Runner commuter drive, in their car, to get to a Rail Runner station?

Many take bus, bike, or get dropped off. Not relevant, really.. if it was less convenient, they wouldn't be counted in the ridership.

f. What is the emissions/rider from one of these diesel locomotives, when pulling a just a few passenger cars?

According to website, about half as with cars. Dunno if those are single-driver cars or not.

g. Can we believe that environmental life cycle cost of building and operating this rail system is preferable to the emissions from the 2,000 vehicles supposedly removed from I-25?

You leave out the elephant in the room. The construction and maintenance cost of the additional lane-miles of interstate (particularly in urban areas) to keep traffic at the same speed is not zero.

Also, the life cycle is not "until now". We're just getting started here. The ridership will increase, perhaps slowly, perhaps quickly.

The system's still young. To actively compare the fledgling Rail Runner to a 100+-year-old system like Chicago's is totally misleading.

(Why did we dredge up this thread? There are more recent Rail Runner threads out there.. could this be moved to that one?)

[mortimer]

Originally Posted by Zoidberg

Why did we dredge up this thread? There are more recent Rail Runner threads out there.

This was as good as any to post the numbers.
There has been activity on it in 2009.
At least a new thread wasn't started.
The thread title is perfect.

Originally Posted by Zoidberg

... investment has already been made; the time for debate ... has passed.

Oh I think we have all kinds of time for the post-mortem.

We can debate whether the $500 million would have been better spent on
a light rail system that carried 10,000 commuters/day.

We can debate whether the money would have been better spent on
a third lane each way to Santa Fe on I-25.

It also allows for discussion about how to fund such things in the future.
A dedicated fuel tax would have been the way to go. It's still going to
be necessary in the long run to keep the Rail Runner going.

There's ALWAYS time for that kind of discussion. If you don't analyze
stuff like that, how will you learn from your mistakes?

Originally Posted by Zoidberg

Not relevant, really.

Almost any rail system in the US is going to require park-and-ride.
Some people believe that by 'forcing' rail on the public, people will
totally abandon their cars. This hasn't even happened in Europe
where some countries are paying $10/gallon.

Originally Posted by Zoidberg

That's probably not very important in view of the huge cost-per-rider
of this system. If anyone really cares, any engine can be made cleaner.

Originally Posted by Zoidberg

You leave out the elephant in the room. The construction and maintenance cost of the additional lane-miles of interstate (particularly in urban areas) to keep traffic at the same speed is not zero.

There's an elephant only if the Rail Runner is reducing the cost of all
that construction and maintenance.

Originally Posted by Zoidberg

To actively compare the fledgling Rail Runner to a 100+-year-old system like Chicago's is totally misleading.

I don't think so. It makes a good post-mortem when we start wondering why we spend so much more per passenger than the Chicago system. That way when other communities like Casper, WY and Cheyene, WY start making noise about building a "Wind Runner" between the two towns, they'll have a point of comparison.

[Poncho_NM]

Originally Posted by mpgerber

2. Average ticket price is +/- $4.00 each way.

If you were a commuter, surely you would buy the monthy or maybe the yearly pass. At five trips to work per week, that would come out to $5.50 per day for the monthly pass, $4.50 per day if you bought the yearly pass. Senior's, students some disabled people can get cheaper rates. Those tickets are based on the longest train ride possible, the most number of zones.

Originally Posted by mpgerber

a. Is this a good investment?

I do not know.

Originally Posted by mpgerber

c. On average, how many miles does the Rail Runner commuter drive, in their car, to get to a Rail Runner station?

I know two people who work andcommute in Santa Fe and take the train from Bernallilo. The total driving distance is 13 miles per day to Bernallilo for them. Their daily train fare based on buying a monthly pass is $4.25 per day.

Originally Posted by mpgerber

f. What is the emissions/rider from one of these diesel locomotives, when pulling a just a few passenger cars?

Diesel electric locomotives tend to be efficient. The RailRunner is said to be efficient but have not seen real statistics. It uses biofuels.



Rich

[GregW]

I commute 40+ miles each way to Boston by bus because the traffic makes driving difficult and downtown parking is way too expensive. I pay $75 per week to do this. I would probably take a train if it were less expensive and connected with the Park & ride lot I use. There was train and trolley service all over the New Hampshire 60 years ago but most of the tracks have been torn up and the ROW turned into recreation trails.

There are some intercity routs where passenger trains make sense. Most of them are on or east of the Mississippi River. Freight trains (intermodal container haulers) make energy sense but the time can still be beat by a semi trailer with two drivers on a coast to center or coast to coast route. The rail companies have to revise their systems to allow coast to coast container delivery in less than three days to really cut into trucking. Trains cannot be beat for carrying bulk commodities (coal, alcohol, grain, etc.) except where there is a barge capable waterway available.

When I was about 10 years old my family rode the trains from New York to Seattle. We took the Twentieth Century Limited to Chicago and the Empire Builder to Seattle. I can still recall the Rocky Mountains from the dome car and the endless prairie from Chicago to western Montana.

In the near future I plan on repeating that trip on a Gold Wing or equivalent motorcycle.

PS. I still maintain that government (our) money is better spent on domestic infrastructure than on our Imperial nightmare in the Middle East.