Jump to content


Photo

RailRunner Existence In Question


28 replies to this topic

#1 WhoozOn1st

WhoozOn1st

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,143 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southern California

Posted 19 January 2011 - 09:30 PM

As passenger rail projects across the country become targets for budget-cutters, the next service that could be on the chopping block is New Mexico's RailRunner commuter line. Newly inaugurated Republican Gov. Susana Martinez says she is taking a hard look at the trains, as reported by the Santa Fe New Mexican:

Rail Runner faces new scrutiny

"'Had I been governor, I would not have supported the Rail Runner as it exists today,' [new Republican governor Susana] Martinez said during the campaign. 'However, we now have the train and must look at ways to make the Rail Runner a more self-sustaining operation that is less draining on the taxpayers, or try to sell it to a private operator.'"

"The state spent more than $400 million building the train, which had been years in the works. It started service in the Albuquerque corridor in 2006 before beginning rides from Santa Fe to Belen in 2008. Recently, ridership has declined, something supporters say is attributable to a decrease in the number of trains on Saturday and higher weekend fares."

Related Story: Rail Runner Express ridership dips

Edited by WhoozOn1st, 19 January 2011 - 09:36 PM.

WhoozOn1st
See! Whooz Train Video Asylum "It's Raileriffic!!" Now over 300 Steam, Electric, and Diesel clips!
Enjoy! Whooz Rail SmugShots & Videos New & Improved: New Pics & Vids added daily!
Peruse! Whooz Picasa Memory Lane is a nice drive.

#2 Spokker

Spokker

    OBS Chief

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 306 posts

Posted 19 January 2011 - 10:01 PM

If RailRunner can achieve 50% farebox recovery, then it would be doing a good job. Anything higher than that is unrealistic.

#3 Eric S

Eric S

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,065 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Milwaukee

Posted 19 January 2011 - 10:18 PM

"Sell it to a private operator"? Um, yeah, OK.

#4 Devil's Advocate

Devil's Advocate

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,617 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Antonio, Texas, USA

Posted 19 January 2011 - 10:28 PM

Another neo-conservative Republican is inaugurated and another passenger train is under attack.

Looks like I'd better get my first ride planned before they start gutting and/or privatizing this into oblivion.

In other news Kay Baily Hutchison is retiring...

Maybe she finally realized that her relatively moderate views are no longer appreciated or workable in today's GOP/TP.

Any views expressed are my own and do not represent the views of my employer, parent companies, partners, or subsidiaries.

Over 50,000 people just like you recently signed a petition to expand high speed passenger rail in the United States of America.

Long live The Coast Starlight, The California Zephyr, The Empire Builder, The Southwest Chief, and The Canadian.


#5 AlanB

AlanB

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,278 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Queens, New York

Posted 20 January 2011 - 12:56 AM

If RailRunner can achieve 50% farebox recovery, then it would be doing a good job. Anything higher than that is unrealistic.


RailRunner's performance is actually very low for commuter rail. On average in this country in 2009 commuter rail achieved a 47.96% fare box recovery rate. RailRunner only hit 14%, which is actually worse than the national average for buses, which are typically worse than rail. So I'm not sure just what's wrong, although I guess that the fares are too low among other issues.

It is interesting to note however that the Governor is looking at the train as a way of helping cut the loses to the state. I say it's interesting, seeing as how in 2009 the State of New Mexico provided exactly $0.00 in funding to the train. The bulk of the funding for this train came from the Fed. Now I have no idea if the Federal monies are expected to expire in the near future, but if they're not expiring, cutting this train will do nothing to help the state's budget woes.
Alan,

Take care and take trains!

#6 amtrakwolverine

amtrakwolverine

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,861 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Warren MI
  • Interests:trains,music,guitars

Posted 20 January 2011 - 01:19 AM

But to the public getting rid of the train makes it look like she is doing something usefull when it fact she is not.

#7 WhoozOn1st

WhoozOn1st

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,143 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southern California

Posted 20 January 2011 - 02:28 AM

Now I have no idea if the Federal monies are expected to expire in the near future, but if they're not expiring, cutting this train will do nothing to help the state's budget woes.

As with HSR funding myopically rejected by Republicans in other states, I think it's safe to say that California stands ready and willing to accept redirected federal dollars and put them to good transit use.Posted Image
WhoozOn1st
See! Whooz Train Video Asylum "It's Raileriffic!!" Now over 300 Steam, Electric, and Diesel clips!
Enjoy! Whooz Rail SmugShots & Videos New & Improved: New Pics & Vids added daily!
Peruse! Whooz Picasa Memory Lane is a nice drive.

#8 gswager

gswager

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,575 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portales, NM
  • Interests:mountain recreations, scuba diving, Christian,

Posted 20 January 2011 - 11:07 AM

The fare for any Albuquerque city bus is $1. Not bad. I knew it is too cheap and I'm still wondering when they'll increase the fare.
Entire length in segments- Southwest Chief (LSV-LAX & CHI-LSV), Pacific Surfliner (SLO-LAX & LAX-SAN) & San Joaquin (Oakland stub)
Entire length, end to end- Lake Shore Limited (Boston stub) (11/09), Downeaster (11/09) & Coast Starlight (10/11)
Partial- California Zephyr (SLC-EMY), Hiawatha, Cascades (SEA-PDX) & Acela (BOS-PVD)

#9 PRR 60

PRR 60

    Engineer

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,938 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South NJ

Posted 20 January 2011 - 01:45 PM

...It is interesting to note however that the Governor is looking at the train as a way of helping cut the loses to the state. I say it's interesting, seeing as how in 2009 the State of New Mexico provided exactly $0.00 in funding to the train. The bulk of the funding for this train came from the Fed. Now I have no idea if the Federal monies are expected to expire in the near future, but if they're not expiring, cutting this train will do nothing to help the state's budget woes.

That would have been true if revenue were meeting expectation. Unfortunately, it is not.

The plan for RailRunner was to have 25% of the operation paid from fares and fees, 25% from federal congestion mitigation and air quality (CMAQ) grants, and 50% from a 1/8% sales tax. The fare box revenue is coming in well below the 25% projection (now about 10% and dropping), and the sales tax revenue is also not meeting projections. The federal CMAQ grant is fixed, so the deficit has to be made up from another source. That source is the state. The state is faced with a multi-million dollar contribution to keep RailRunner operating when the expectation was that fares, the CMAQ grant, and the sales tax would do the trick.

Edited by PRR 60, 20 January 2011 - 01:48 PM.


#10 AlanB

AlanB

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,278 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Queens, New York

Posted 20 January 2011 - 04:13 PM


...It is interesting to note however that the Governor is looking at the train as a way of helping cut the loses to the state. I say it's interesting, seeing as how in 2009 the State of New Mexico provided exactly $0.00 in funding to the train. The bulk of the funding for this train came from the Fed. Now I have no idea if the Federal monies are expected to expire in the near future, but if they're not expiring, cutting this train will do nothing to help the state's budget woes.

That would have been true if revenue were meeting expectation. Unfortunately, it is not.

The plan for RailRunner was to have 25% of the operation paid from fares and fees, 25% from federal congestion mitigation and air quality (CMAQ) grants, and 50% from a 1/8% sales tax. The fare box revenue is coming in well below the 25% projection (now about 10% and dropping), and the sales tax revenue is also not meeting projections. The federal CMAQ grant is fixed, so the deficit has to be made up from another source. That source is the state. The state is faced with a multi-million dollar contribution to keep RailRunner operating when the expectation was that fares, the CMAQ grant, and the sales tax would do the trick.


Bill,

May I ask your source, because according to the National Transit Database, zero state dollars of any type were used in 2009. Only fares, Federal funds, and other sources which typically include things like interest, rent of building, ads, etc., paid for the train.
Alan,

Take care and take trains!

#11 PRR 60

PRR 60

    Engineer

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,938 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South NJ

Posted 20 January 2011 - 05:52 PM

Bill,

May I ask your source, because according to the National Transit Database, zero state dollars of any type were used in 2009. Only fares, Federal funds, and other sources which typically include things like interest, rent of building, ads, etc., paid for the train.

It comes from the Mid Region Council of Governments of New Mexico and was also stated by a Rail Runner spokesperson in a TV interview. Here is the info from the MRCOG:

...For fiscal year 2009, fares cover about 14% of the operating costs. Fees paid by BNSF and Amtrak cover another 7%. The voter-approved tax for Rail Runner operations (0.125% adder to the Gross receipts tax in Rail Runner counties) contributes another 54%, and Federal Congestion Mitigation Air Quality funds from the New Mexico Department of Transportation cover the remaining 25%, which is approximately $5 million per year.


MRCOG

The Gross Receipts Tax is the New Mexico version of a sales tax. The rate is variable by county.

#12 Trogdor

Trogdor

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,725 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Here

Posted 20 January 2011 - 06:09 PM


...It is interesting to note however that the Governor is looking at the train as a way of helping cut the loses to the state. I say it's interesting, seeing as how in 2009 the State of New Mexico provided exactly $0.00 in funding to the train. The bulk of the funding for this train came from the Fed. Now I have no idea if the Federal monies are expected to expire in the near future, but if they're not expiring, cutting this train will do nothing to help the state's budget woes.

That would have been true if revenue were meeting expectation. Unfortunately, it is not.

The plan for RailRunner was to have 25% of the operation paid from fares and fees, 25% from federal congestion mitigation and air quality (CMAQ) grants, and 50% from a 1/8% sales tax. The fare box revenue is coming in well below the 25% projection (now about 10% and dropping), and the sales tax revenue is also not meeting projections. The federal CMAQ grant is fixed, so the deficit has to be made up from another source. That source is the state. The state is faced with a multi-million dollar contribution to keep RailRunner operating when the expectation was that fares, the CMAQ grant, and the sales tax would do the trick.




Bill,

May I ask your source, because according to the National Transit Database, zero state dollars of any type were used in 2009. Only fares, Federal funds, and other sources which typically include things like interest, rent of building, ads, etc., paid for the train.

It comes from the Mid Region Council of Governments of New Mexico and was also stated by a Rail Runner spokesperson in a TV interview. Here is the info from the MRCOG:

...For fiscal year 2009, fares cover about 14% of the operating costs. Fees paid by BNSF and Amtrak cover another 7%. The voter-approved tax for Rail Runner operations (0.125% adder to the Gross receipts tax in Rail Runner counties) contributes another 54%, and Federal Congestion Mitigation Air Quality funds from the New Mexico Department of Transportation cover the remaining 25%, which is approximately $5 million per year.


MRCOG

The Gross Receipts Tax is the New Mexico version of a sales tax. The rate is variable by county.


I think you're proving yourself wrong here.

You said the original plan was to cover it 25% from fares and fees, 25% from CMAQ, and 50% from the sales tax.

According to the quote you provided, fares cover 14% and Amtrak/BNSF fees (I'm assuming trackage rights and other fees) cover 7%. That's 21%. The sales tax, according to the quote, covers 54%, and CMAQ covers 25%.

So, the sales tax is covering the 4% that the fares and fees are falling short. You can argue that the sales tax is "state money," but it was approved by voters to be dedicated to RailRunner, so there's really nothing wrong there.

Or am I missing something?
Posted Image

#13 Spokker

Spokker

    OBS Chief

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 306 posts

Posted 20 January 2011 - 08:06 PM

It may be that rail is just not viable on this corridor. It wouldn't be a bad idea to pull the plug.

It would be a shame, though. From the outside looking in, it appears to be a nice starter service with slick trains. It's average speed is around 42-43 MPH as scheduled, which puts it in line with most services I've seen.

#14 Eric S

Eric S

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,065 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Milwaukee

Posted 20 January 2011 - 11:06 PM

Might NM also be facing an issue in that CMAQ grants are typically only good for a limited time (3 years I believe), after which time it is expected that fares or local/state funds will replace the CMAQ funds?

#15 PRR 60

PRR 60

    Engineer

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,938 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South NJ

Posted 21 January 2011 - 09:20 AM



Bill,

May I ask your source, because according to the National Transit Database, zero state dollars of any type were used in 2009. Only fares, Federal funds, and other sources which typically include things like interest, rent of building, ads, etc., paid for the train.

It comes from the Mid Region Council of Governments of New Mexico and was also stated by a Rail Runner spokesperson in a TV interview. Here is the info from the MRCOG:

...For fiscal year 2009, fares cover about 14% of the operating costs. Fees paid by BNSF and Amtrak cover another 7%. The voter-approved tax for Rail Runner operations (0.125% adder to the Gross receipts tax in Rail Runner counties) contributes another 54%, and Federal Congestion Mitigation Air Quality funds from the New Mexico Department of Transportation cover the remaining 25%, which is approximately $5 million per year.


MRCOG

The Gross Receipts Tax is the New Mexico version of a sales tax. The rate is variable by county.


I think you're proving yourself wrong here.

You said the original plan was to cover it 25% from fares and fees, 25% from CMAQ, and 50% from the sales tax.

According to the quote you provided, fares cover 14% and Amtrak/BNSF fees (I'm assuming trackage rights and other fees) cover 7%. That's 21%. The sales tax, according to the quote, covers 54%, and CMAQ covers 25%.

So, the sales tax is covering the 4% that the fares and fees are falling short. You can argue that the sales tax is "state money," but it was approved by voters to be dedicated to RailRunner, so there's really nothing wrong there.

Or am I missing something?

The purpose of my link and the quote from the link was to provide Alan with authoritative information concerning local and state funding of Rail Runner operation. Since the quoted statistics are from 2009 and the reported financial problems are related to ridership and revenue issues now, I don't think the data proves or disproves anything in that regard.

#16 had8ley

had8ley

    Engineer

  • Committee Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,111 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, Louisiana
  • Interests:"There's nothin' nicer than "dinner In the diner." After 30 plus years of pulling cabooses and pax trains around it's time for someone else to pull me around...

Posted 21 January 2011 - 10:27 AM


If RailRunner can achieve 50% farebox recovery, then it would be doing a good job. Anything higher than that is unrealistic.


RailRunner's performance is actually very low for commuter rail. On average in this country in 2009 commuter rail achieved a 47.96% fare box recovery rate. RailRunner only hit 14%, which is actually worse than the national average for buses, which are typically worse than rail. So I'm not sure just what's wrong, although I guess that the fares are too low among other issues.

It is interesting to note however that the Governor is looking at the train as a way of helping cut the loses to the state. I say it's interesting, seeing as how in 2009 the State of New Mexico provided exactly $0.00 in funding to the train. The bulk of the funding for this train came from the Fed. Now I have no idea if the Federal monies are expected to expire in the near future, but if they're not expiring, cutting this train will do nothing to help the state's budget woes.

Sounds good if you're in front of a mike....might get a few Tea Partyers on board the kill the train train...

#17 George Harris

George Harris

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,363 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:now in California
  • Interests:Track, construction, schedules

Posted 21 January 2011 - 07:01 PM

Teh development of the Railrunner was a wonder to behold. I cannot think of any public transportation system anywhere else in the US that was put together so fast. It appeared that all obstacles dissapeared almost by magic. Considering the usual trials and travails that go with getting ANYTHING like this going, the suspicious minded were left thinking tha the fix was in with all the agencies involved. In addition, there equipment was all or almost all bought new.

How did this manage to happen? Given the population of the area and the low fares, the low farebox recovery is no surprise.

At about the same time, the Music City Star in Nashville was getting under way. Watching both these happen at the same time, and being similar in length, the contrast with what was done in Nashville. was striking. Almost everything for Nashville was bought used or done on the basis of as cheap as possible without destroying funcionality. In fact, their major cost was upgrading 30 miles of ex Tennessee Central track from 25 mph to 60 mph.

Fares adn ridership per train appear to be similar.

#18 JAChooChoo

JAChooChoo

    OBS Chief

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 253 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Stone Mountain GA
  • Interests:Passenger, B&O

Posted 21 January 2011 - 07:36 PM

Well I assume that selling the RailRunner privately will mean selling the I-25 corridor to a private buyer. Oh, that would be a toll authority required to meet the same financial results........Hmmm........
Alan

#19 bretton88

bretton88

    OBS Chief

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 449 posts

Posted 06 February 2011 - 10:18 AM

No private company would take the train unless it also came packaged with the I25 corridor as a tollway. Then you really would have a case of the roads subsidizing the trains! Tolls would have to be higher accordingly to compensate for the approximately 5 million $ cost that taxes and fares do not cover. Imagine the screaming in NM if that scenario ever came to pass.
Bring on Omaha-Lincoln train service!!
In my dreams, I guess.

#20 Guest_FireMedicRN_*

Guest_FireMedicRN_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 May 2012 - 12:43 PM

$1,000,000,000 (One billion dollars) have been spent on rehabbing a 16 mile stretch of I-40 that runs through the City of Albuquerque in the past 10 years. This is not a brand new highway, it is not a new alternative. It is an existing highway. A highway that bypasses the local businesses/Downtown, etc. It allow cross country travelers to zip through our fair city much faster. To date, not one cent of the cost of rehabbing, maintaining, patrolling, etc., of this 16 miles has been recouped by the City, State, or Federal Gov't. Essentially a 0% return on the "fare box". 100% subsidized - it will NEVER pay for itself. When it was originally built in the late 1950's, it divided neighborhoods and siphoned commerce from the commercial areas of the city, most still have not recovered fully 50+ years later.

By contrast, the entire 100 mile corridor of the NM Rail Runner Express regional passenger train cost a paltry $400,000,000 (Four hundred million dollars). It was a completely new and alternative route between 2 of New Mexico's most important cities: the State Capital in Santa Fe, and the largest city, Albuquerque, which has the state's only International Airport. Prior to the Rail Runner, there was essentially only one road connecting the two cities - I-25. I-25 has increasingly more traffic, and more accidents, and more closures due to both accidents and weather. Literally one road. With no frontage road. If an accident closed I-25, you were stuck.
Despite the Great Recession, many small and local businesses have weathered the recession in and around the Rail Runner route which doesn't bypass the commercial centers of the communities it passes through. This benefits the state economically, as local businesses pay higher taxes and reinvest locally, whereas the national chains on the interstate exits pay less taxes (in some cases no taxes), and send profits back to corporate headquarters out of state.

The economic rewards (increased investments/increase tax collection/tourism) that the NM Rail Runner Express brings to local and state coffers is sadly, never added to the balance sheet. Neither are the social benefits factored in. Many people don't have cars or choose not to drive or cannot drive due to visual, or physical conditions, or age -too young or too old. It also give both businesses and employees a greater area with which to connect. People who may not be able to afford to live in Santa Fe can now affordably commute from more reasonably priced housing in Albuquerque or Rio Rancho or Los Lunas, etc.

As for the fare box revenue, the cost of a round trip ticket between ABQ and SFe only just was increased to $9 on May 21, 2012 - still ridiculously low. But given that the 'user fee' for the same route on I-25 is STILL $0, I guess the train fare is maybe too high!! I look forward to the day when I-25 becomes a more self-sustaining operation that is less draining on the taxpayers" and or is sold " to a private operator.'" I think a $9 round trip toll on I-25 (and I-40 for that matter) is totally reasonable!



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users