Robinson: In praise of the Rail Runne...

Robinson: In praise of the Rail Runner - Ruidoso News

There are 56 comments on the Ruidoso News story from Mar 22, 2011, titled Robinson: In praise of the Rail Runner - Ruidoso News. In it, Ruidoso News reports that:

Let's eavesdrop on a legislative Transportation and Public Works Committee meeting earlier this month.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Ruidoso News.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Deputy276

“Not vengeance, punishment.”

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#56 Apr 6, 2011
Think the Rail-loser is popular among New Mexicans? Okay, I invite anyone who loves the Rail-Loser to post a poll. "Do you think the Railrunner is worth keeping or should it be scrapped?"

The results should be fascinating :-)

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#57 Apr 6, 2011
Deputy276 wrote:
Think the Rail-loser is popular among New Mexicans? Okay, I invite anyone who loves the Rail-Loser to post a poll. "Do you think the Railrunner is worth keeping or should it be scrapped?"
The results should be fascinating :-)
Why don't you do the poll, your idea.
CornDogz

Arlington, TX

#58 Apr 7, 2011
Deputy276 wrote:
Think the Rail-loser is popular among New Mexicans? Okay, I invite anyone who loves the Rail-Loser to post a poll. "Do you think the Railrunner is worth keeping or should it be scrapped?"
The results should be fascinating :-)
Lol, the only ones who like it are state employees who ride at taxpayers expense instead of their own, and a tiny handful who like to ride and shop in Santa Fe. Ridership is less than 1/4th of 1% of the entire corridor population.

It may be a good concept but implementation and fit for NM are lousy.
WorkingStiff

Carlsbad, CA

#60 Apr 7, 2011
Bedrock Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
The developers in Santa Fe are willing to bet millions that the Rail Runner pans out. That would be a lot better indication of the future of the Rail Runner than any opinion of yours I would say.
A big part of the Rail Runner was to increase the value of certain properties along its path. It fulfilled this goal quite well. I know that you are focused on other aspects of the train but the real story is MONEY. That is why it was built in the first place... To increase the value of certain commercial properties, to create an open ended ticket for construction at a very volatile time, and to provide much needed public transportation in the Albuquerque/Santa Fe corridor.
While many will make a high pitched whine whenever the Rail Runner is mentioned there are always two sides to the story. So your political rant about the Rail Runner is just that...a political rant. The fact is that no form of public transportation has ever ran in the black. That was a given from the start. Only a fool would expect the train to be a "profitable" venture for the State. And the ridership is small. That is the main reason that it is so much of a burden to the taxpayers. DUH?
But just as new ideas grow and come into maturity so will this one. We have it whether you like the idea or not. There is no other way to say it. And we must try to make it work rather than wishing it away. It isn't about politics, Bill Richardson, Susana Marinez or my personal political views. This is about the RAIL RUNNER. And despite the whining partisans who cant seem to make any headway despite electing a ringer for Governor we will have to do the best we can with the situation. That will mean accepting the fact that public transportation is always a burden on taxpayers whether it be the Rail Runner in the north or the "Big I" in Albuquerque, the Spaceport or the Del Rey/I-70 project in Las Cruces. The entire state pays for the lions share of the cost.
So whine about the Rail Runner because "liberal Santa Fe" benefits the most if you feel that it is a means to an end. Try to keep in mind that no matter where State money is spent it benefits some more than others. And all you need to do to take advantage of the "taxpayer subsidized rates" on the Rail Runner is to take a ride. Your personal tax burden for this project will have been offset by the gas you save in one trip from Albuquerque to Santa Fe.
...Or you can bitch and whine about the train. It is your choice.
I'd rather call a spade a spade. The Failed blunder is just that. Glad to see that property values in SF have (or perhaps will) rise for developers (FOB?). Nice, a train to nowhere used by a few. A behemoth money pit that has drained the state's coffers and continues to do so. The spaceport is another looser but not to the degree of the failed blunder. The I25 construction was justifiable.

Again, not my train. I would rather ride my Harley on a cold, rainy day to SF than ride it. I have no need or never will use it but we all pay for it whether you believe in it or not. Whats the term you libs use? oh yeah! whining! Yes, I do whine as you call it when I see senseless spending because it is our money as taxpayers that is going down the shit hole. But you love waste so it seems. Enjoy
Santa Fe

Santa Fe, NM

#61 Apr 7, 2011
WorkingStiff wrote:
<quoted text>

I would rather ride my Harley on a cold, rainy day to SF than ride it. I have no need or never will use it but we all pay for it whether you believe in it or not.

. Enjoy
and Albuquerque are hardly nowhere and as the economy, connections and publicity improves and gas goes up there will be more demand for good public transport. It is a public good, a societal good. It seems you are one of those that doesn't believe in that either.
WorkingStiff

Carlsbad, CA

#63 Apr 7, 2011
Santa Fe wrote:
<quoted text>
and Albuquerque are hardly nowhere and as the economy, connections and publicity improves and gas goes up there will be more demand for good public transport. It is a public good, a societal good. It seems you are one of those that doesn't believe in that either.
Actually Bob, I do. Just as Corny dog mentioned. But not at the point of bankrupting the state and having to rob Paul to pay Peter.
WorkingStiff

Carlsbad, CA

#64 Apr 7, 2011
Bedrock Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again it has nothing to do with ME fellow! I dont know why you cant seem to get past that. And I dont care if you use the train, plenty of others do. You can whine all you want now I suppose because whining is all you are willing to do to address the problem.
The fact is there is bad and good in all expenditures for public transportation and this very same argument has been had in every case. This ine is not unique, exceptionally risky, nor exceptionally costly. No, it was not the best idea. Yes it is a boondoggle. But POLITICS ASIDE what is the solution?
Ride your harley and whine?
Yuuupp!!
WorkingStiff

Carlsbad, CA

#66 Apr 7, 2011
Bedrock Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
You are barking up the wrong tree if you think Santa Fe is me. But if it makes you happy to think that then be my guest.
It would behoove you to not assume you know what is going on. You dont...
OK, and if it makes you happy that I DON'T think you are Santa Fe then be MY guest. lol
CornDogz

Arlington, TX

#67 Apr 7, 2011
WorkingStiff wrote:
<quoted text>The recent infusions of cash to keep the RailRunner running continue a history of project costs and operating losses exceeding expectations. The RailRunner’s red ink means money is being denied other surface transportation needs. While the RailRunner continues to get money to cover its shortfall, major transportation needs are going unmet.
Did you see the recent article regarding the cost(s) of transit transportation in northern NM? Major eye opener!!!
WorkingStiff wrote:
<quoted text>Of the $600 million in highway projects assigned to the I-25 corridor, the RailRunner’s costs consumed more than 79% of designated funds. The RailRunner’s cost has weighed heavily on the state’s ability to fund future highway construction and maintenance.
Once the entire state paid through the nose to get the FailRunner initially, maintenance of this white elephant was passed onto the people within the corridor it serves. Most amusing that the day AFTER the $20mil/yr special tax was approved for that purpose, the FailRunner clowns immediately stated that this was not enough money for that. Strange that they couldn't be forthright with the public at the outset when they asked for the tax amount.
WorkingStiff wrote:
<quoted text>The debt service constraints on highway project funding are directly impacting some desperately needed highway improvements. In its Janaury 2010 report to the Legislature, the LFC wrote,“because GRIP requires almost 50 percent of expected federal revenue for debt service payment, revenues are insufficient to meet the projected needs of the state transportation system. This is why the department cannot program the Paseo del Norte interchange in Albuquerque or the North West Loop between Interstate 40 and Interstate 25 for completion in the near future.” The report points out one half of federal funding received has been committed to just debt service for the next 20 years.
Shutting down this Richardson ego boosting boondoggle would be the proper approach. More corridor residents would be served and much better IMO were that to occur and projects like Paseo be funded, especially given how few use the FailRunner. Not only are NM taxpayers paying for the State Employee Express but they also bailed out AMTRAK by purchasing all that track between SF and Raton, track we'll never ever use.

Great concept but a lousy fit and deal for NM. I'm surprised AMTRAK hasn't made crooked billy triple chins a job offer!
WorkingStiff

Carlsbad, CA

#68 Apr 7, 2011
CornDogz wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you see the recent article regarding the cost(s) of transit transportation in northern NM? Major eye opener!!!
<quoted text>
<quoted text> No, do you have a link? would like to see it<quoted text>
Once the entire state paid through the nose to get the FailRunner initially, maintenance of this white elephant was passed onto the people within the corridor it serves. Most amusing that the day AFTER the $20mil/yr special tax was approved for that purpose, the FailRunner clowns immediately stated that this was not enough money for that. Strange that they couldn't be forthright with the public at the outset when they asked for the tax amount.
<quoted text>
<quoted text> Interesting <quoted text>
Shutting down this Richardson ego boosting boondoggle would be the proper approach. More corridor residents would be served and much better IMO were that to occur and projects like Paseo be funded, especially given how few use the FailRunner. Not only are NM taxpayers paying for the State Employee Express but they also bailed out AMTRAK by purchasing all that track between SF and Raton, track we'll never ever use.
Great concept but a lousy fit and deal for NM. I'm surprised AMTRAK hasn't made crooked billy triple chins a job offer!
Careful there Corn, you'll be labeled as a whiner. lol
WorkingStiff

Carlsbad, CA

#69 Apr 7, 2011
CornDogz wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you see the recent article regarding the cost(s) of transit transportation in northern NM? Major eye opener!!!
<quoted text>
No. Do you have a link? Interested to read it.
CornDogz

Arlington, TX

#70 Apr 7, 2011
Bedrock Bob wrote:
<quoted text>The developers in Santa Fe are willing to bet millions that the Rail Runner pans out. That would be a lot better indication of the future of the Rail Runner than any opinion of yours I would say. A big part of the Rail Runner was to increase the value of certain properties along its path. It fulfilled this goal quite well.
Hmmm, like the various plots of Indian owned land, the defunct horseracing track and empty outlet mall perhaps? No other stops of any consequence or land worth developing for anything else along the way really. Yuppers, Billy's failed choo choo will do a lot for that. Now they *MAY* help out the developer & land owner(and long time Richardson buddy) of the plot slated for a FailRunner stop in SF that was in the news not long ago. That's for HIS benefit, not taxpayers.
Bedrock Bob wrote:
<quoted text>I know that you are focused on other aspects of the train but the real story is MONEY. That is why it was built in the first place... To increase the value of certain commercial properties, to create an open ended ticket for construction at a very volatile time, and to provide much needed public transportation in the Albuquerque/Santa Fe corridor.
Financial benefit for a few, not for those who actually paid and will continue to pay for this millstone around our necks. Buses would have been a much better and much cheaper(as well as more functional) mode of transpo for the corridor.

Transportation for whom - state employees? 1/4th of 1% usage by the corridor population is far from being useful or a glaring recommendation.
Bedrock Bob wrote:
<quoted text>The fact is that no form of public transportation has ever ran in the black. That was a given from the start. Only a fool would expect the train to be a "profitable" venture for the State. And the ridership is small. That is the main reason that it is so much of a burden to the taxpayers. DUH?
...run in the black. Very true, and I've never disputed that point. What I do dispute is the degree to which this is and was such a poorly planned idea and how little it does for so few. MaqLev is a great concept too, but would be a lousy fit for Abq, the corridor, or NM. Some things are lousy ideas for NM, and the FailRunner was/is one.
Bedrock Bob wrote:
<quoted text>That will mean accepting the fact that public transportation is always a burden on taxpayers whether it be the Rail Runner in the north or the "Big I" in Albuquerque, the Spaceport or the Del Rey/I-70 project in Las Cruces. The entire state pays for the lions share of the cost.
So one should accept a bad idea sold to the mindless masses as "...good for them"? Stop the useless projects and end the bleeding! Anything else does little to help keep people paying their bills.
Bedrock Bob wrote:
<quoted text>So whine about the Rail Runner because "liberal Santa Fe" benefits the most if you feel that it is a means to an end. Try to keep in mind that no matter where State money is spent it benefits some more than others.
Like 1/4th of 1% of the corridor population - right? And Billy triple chins buddies...
Bedrock Bob wrote:
<quoted text>And all you need to do to take advantage of the "taxpayer subsidized rates" on the Rail Runner is to take a ride. Your personal tax burden for this project will have been offset by the gas you save in one trip from Albuquerque to Santa Fe.
Since many/most have no desire nor need to commute t/f Santa Flush(me included), why would they want to ride it? The inflated ridership figures they touted included all the free rides they gave away. Even they admitted how much ridership fell off once the not-so-free rides ended. And their figures call one person going round trip as two riders(number spinning).
CornDogz

Arlington, TX

#71 Apr 7, 2011
Santa Fe wrote:
<quoted text>
and Albuquerque are hardly nowhere and as the economy, connections and publicity improves and gas goes up there will be more demand for good public transport. It is a public good, a societal good. It seems you are one of those that doesn't believe in that either.
Keep drinking that liberal flavored kool-aid. Many can't afford to go to SF, let alone shop there or eat there due to the horrendous overcharges for far from superior food.

How many do you think driving on I-40 actually work in SF? Very few, almost all that traffic are people passing through, and the FailRunner is of no use to them whatsoever, yet FailRunner advocates like to spin the numbers by including their traffic volume to suit their own needs.

I believe in something being worthwhile for the majority(at least 50%) of the population served. Something the FailRunner does not do, and the likelihood it ever will is even less probable. Daily ridership is way less than 1/4th of 1% of the corridor population where that population is currently around 850,000 people. And you think that's good for the costs(initial and on-going) involved? More stinking liberal Obamanomics...
CornDogz

Arlington, TX

#72 Apr 7, 2011
Bedrock Bob wrote:
<quoted text>No, it was not the best idea. Yes it is a boondoggle. But POLITICS ASIDE what is the solution?
Buses would have been and still would be a better fit, economically as well as functionally.

Stop the bleeding, shut down the FAILRUNNER!!!
CornDogz

Arlington, TX

#73 Apr 7, 2011
WorkingStiff wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Do you have a link? Interested to read it.
IIRC it was within the last week, if that's of any help. Part of it alluded to them spending something like 79c(?) of every $1 they got/get on administrative costs. Crazy...
CornDogz

Arlington, TX

#75 Apr 7, 2011
Bedrock Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
I have always held that busses would have been a better idea. But we have a train. No one is "bleeding" here Corn Dog. I dont like the rail runner any better than you do but it DOES have some merits. I amn not defending Bill at all. Just being objective.
I am too, hence my posting of ridership numbers as opposed to those who ride the FailRunner. There are many things in life that are great concepts, and seem functional until the monetary side of things are inserted, then they all of a sudden don't look so good any longer. The FailRunner is one of those IMO. I totally agree with subsidized public transportation, but that agreement comes along with a healthy dose of reality too such that there are limits to the subsidy, and those have been exceeded. It was sold as a great bill of goods with a healthy dose of "..Santa Fe will greatly benefit from this...", which drew SF votes. But in reality we see little of that occurring for all manner of reasons, of which one is for sure the economy. When the dust settles, it is still obvious that the benefit for those involved is not there, only for the minuscule ridership.
Bedrock Bob wrote:
<quoted text>No one said that it was a great benefit for the taxpayers at all. Least of all me. The only benefit that I have expounderd on is to the individual rider. And there is a great benefit to the individual rider.
On point #1, that's how it was touted by $Bill, his minions and MRCOG. The mindless masses bought it hook, line and sinker, and are now on the opposite end of that pole with the hook in their mouths.
On point #2, at what point does the needs of the entire community take precedence over the individual rider? I believe we exceeded that point long ago.
Bedrock Bob wrote:
<quoted text>You do know that there are speculators that built Rail Runner stops in Santa Fe that are yet to be used? And speculators for the "Super Complex" that have designed their proposals around the Rail Runner? That is what I was getting at. Not some reservation land or the outlet mall. You really dont know what is going on here do you?
I know enough to feel another slight of hand at work here, slick Billy's brilliance and liberal agendas at work again fleecing the sheeple. BOHICA!!!!!
Bedrock Bob wrote:
<quoted text>No one cares if you visit Santa Fe. But it is a fact that the city more than doubles in size on a business day becasue MOST workers here commute from somewhere else. It is the only area in the state where this happens on this scale. So YOUR needs and wants just dont figure into anyone's plan do they?
Like a broken pencil, you missed the point<sigh>.
Bedrock Bob wrote:
<quoted text>So we just scrap the train?
No, mothball it for several years at a minimum.
Bedrock Bob wrote:
<quoted text>We may as well amke a go of it and ridership is increasing every day. Whether you see the draw or not Santa Fe is an international destination and a VERY popular place to visit.
Lol, you must work for the tourism dept spewing such nonsense. Surf's up on Tingley Beach too!

Seriously, the FailRunner is NOT a good deal(economically viable) for NM nor for those along the corridor. It wasn't when it was conceived, and after $Bill inflated it with buying more track, it only got worse.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Bernalillo Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
brandon craig trial (Apr '09) 2 hr MDC GODS POD BABY 22
Good Old Days 2 (Apr '10) 2 hr Mister Chix 115,072
Today I Saw (Nov '09) 2 hr Piglet Von Chix 64,110
TRUMP just POed Many More People Sun I am 130
News Police say man confronts squatters, gets shot, ... Sun is this real 1
Academy Acres, Far NE Heights, Mail Thieves Aga... Sun they 19
News Albuquerque mayor overrules condiment ban place... Sun help us lower taxes 1

Bernalillo Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Bernalillo Mortgages