Author Archives: admin

18 November 2012

The good news is that the Rail Yards are finally going to be developed. The City of Albuquerque has signed up with a developer called Samitaur Constructs to do this.  And don’t get us wrong; they’re coming up with some pretty exciting stuff; solar panels, green roofs, water catchment, a growers’ market, affordable housing, bicycle access, the Wheels Museum, etc.

The bad news concerns transit. The plans call for an intermodal connection or terminal on 2nd Street SW, for busses and cars.  The Rail Runner is not about to  add a station stop for the Rail Yards, because this stop would be too close to the Alvarado Center (First and Central).  This makes sense until (and unless) the Yards become a truly major destination.  However:

There is no provision at this time for any access to the railroad tracks —-despite the fact that the nearest main line is about six feet from the East fence of the property, and there are at least two spur lines (side tracks) running from the center of Downtown right into major buildings on the property.  This is nuts. It’s a Rail Yard!

Every major city in the North American West has learned that transit means Rail as well as several sizes of Bus.  Seems that we have not. If it’s not in the political or financial cards to set up a Light Rail or Modern Streetcar line as part of this redevelopment, we need to “bank” this possibility for the future.

The most cautious, “conservative” way to do this is to preserve these spur tracks and remodel the buildings they go to so that the Yards could be easily served by Rail transit if and when our local politics discovers the 21st Century.

And should this (literally) millennial event come to pass, we’d start by creating a Rail shuttle between the Alvarado Center and the Yards.  This shuttle would be a short standard gauge modern streetcar (or double streetcar), either new or reconditioned, diesel or electric.  This shuttle, like all modern Rail, would be a great little ride—- fuel/energy efficient, smooth, safe, convenient, and would serve to acquaint the public with the benefits and joys of Rail transit.

Our favorite location for this shuttle would be the track that runs from Downtown into the old brick Blacksmith Building, which to us cries out to become a small Union Station (with all appropriate shops and services).  Our vehicle model is the Doodlebug, a short commuter train that ran between Belen and Albuquerque in the 1930’s and 40’s.

Every place that Rail transit is introduced, even after heavy opposition, it becomes a transportation rock star almost instantly.  Someday we’ve got to join the parade (notice we didn’t say, “get on board”).

To learn more, consult this Web site and also:

http://www.lightrailnow.org/mythbusters.

To become a part of this planning process, contact:  pmorris@cabq.gov.

Also click LR55 under “Major Studies” on this Web site for an interesting Urban Rail possibility.

November 2011

###     Over the 40 years since Amtrak was born, national transportation funding looks something like this:

Rail (Amtrak)                    $   31 Billion

Air Infrastructure               $ 427 Billion

Highways / Roads              $  3.6 Trillion (yes, Trillion)

Given the advantages in fuel / energy economy, long infrastructure life, long vehicle life, safety, thrifty use of land and materials, and the many other benefits afforded by Rail, this table points out a serious imbalance in our transportation investment strategy.

###     Amtrak in general recovers about 85% of its operating costs at the “farebox”, and about 10% more through concessions, etc. Considering long-term true costs and benefits, this rate of return on investment is far higher than those of the air and highway modes.

###     The Hutchinson, Kansas-Albuquerque segment of the SW Chief (670 miles) needs about $94 million the first year and about $11 million per year thereafter to bring it back to 80 mph standards. This is an excellent investment, especially considering the many uses these tracks could be put to besides hosting those essential Amtrak trains.

###     The loss of the Southwest Chief in Western Kansas, SE Colorado and Northern New Mexico would constitute a serious environmental and economic blow to the region, by forcing upon it the much-increased expense, waste and danger of highway-only land transportation.

###     According to recent calculations by Rails Inc, the SW Chief gets roughly 66 passenger-miles per gallon of diesel — even hauling roomy coach cars, sleepers, a diner and an observation car.

###     A train is safer and more reliable than a car or bus in all kinds of inclement weather. More comfortable too.

###     People really like trains.

2007

From Albuquerque Residents For Modern Streetcar  

Note:  The following applies to all modern urban Rail, not just streetcars.

Attracting riders:    As shown in numerous studies, rail transit increases the number of people who will use public transit. A streetcar line attracts new riders who otherwise would not ride a bus. This wider “spectrum” of ridership generates greater public support for transit.

Quality of Service:    Streetcars are more comfortable than buses. The vehicles are much more spacious, the ride is smoother because the rails are embedded in the street, and the vehicles tend to be much quieter as streetcars run on electricity rather than diesel.

Capacity:    A streetcar can hold many more passengers than a bus (nearly 3x the capacity of a regular bus!). The number of buses required to equal the capacity of one streetcar makes buses more expensive to operate and maintain per passenger mile. The higher capacity of streetcars also makes them more energy efficient than buses.

Accessibility:   Modern streetcars are low-floor vehicles, which means that the floor of the streetcar is nearly level with that of the station platform (in this case, the sidewalk). A small automatic ramp allows for easy and quick access for disabled passengers and strollers. It is also easier for bicyclists, since the interior layout is designed so that bicycles can be brought on board.

Environment:   Streetcars run on electricity, so they do not give off exhaust emissions at point of use and are easily adaptable to renewable resources, like solar or wind power (for instance, in Calgary, Alberta their light rail system runs entirely on wind-generated electricity). Streetcars also have steel wheels instead of rubber tires, which tires emit poison dust while in use, and are very difficult to get rid of. *

Sensible Development:   Streetcars also encourage high density, pedestrian-friendly development, creating an alternative to endless auto-dependent sprawl.

Economic growth:    As seen in cities across the country, the construction of a streetcar or light rail line generates millions of dollars in private development and supports long-term economic growth. The fixed nature of a rail line (it can’t just pick up and move like a bus route can) channels development along the streetcar line, increasing density and creating pedestrian and transit friendly development.

* See Where Does Tread Rubber Go? by Peggy J. Fisher and Tyre Dust by Pat Thomas with The Ecologist for some insight into the issue of tire dust. Concerning tire disposal, there’s the Wikipedia article on tire recycling as well as the disaster of Osbourne Reef.

TAKING THE CURVES

There are at least 2 companies making trainsets especially designed to take curves faster than “regular” trains do. One, ABB Daimler-Benz, employs electronic sensing and computer guidance to achieve the required balance. The other, Paténtes Talgo SA, gets its results through the mechanical design of the cars. These systems can raise by 15-30% the speed with which a passenger train can safely negotiate those scenic curves so beloved by us and by railroad photographers. Being a keep-it-simple kind of outfit, we lean toward the Talgos, but we’re open-minded non-experts and would like to see serious attention paid to this issue. After all, there’s a lot of curved track in New Mexico and it might be pretty expensive and disruptive to try to straighten out all we may someday need for future passenger service.

Consult:  www.talgoamerica.com

CHEAP LIGHT RAIL? 

Please consult Major Studies  on this Web site for information about LR-55. This is a promising Light Rail construction scheme being employed in England and Ireland, and possibly being considered for our own East Coast. LR-55 deserves attention primarily due to its minimal disruption of streets and utilities. They use pre-stressed concrete lintels with track grooves already cast in, which they install in shallow trenches dug in the street. This allows for very speedy night installation (up to 200 yards per night, they tell us), and much shallower street excavation. This translates to much less disruption of traffic and underground utilities, a shorter construction period and considerable cost savings.

Consult:   Professor Lesley at: ljslesley@aol.com.

AND WHAT ABOUT MAG-LEV? 

A lot of transportation visionaries look to magnetic levitation as a model for the future of Rail and mass transportation in general. Mag-lev trains currently operate in Germany and Japan, are being planned elsewhere in Europe, and are fast and smooth. Over 300 mph is not uncommon. They sound wonderful, but we at Rails Inc. have tried to discourage discussion of Mag-Lev for New Mexico on walk-before-you-run grounds. Besides, Mag-Lev is expensive compared to “regular” train systems—-almost up there with highway construction. Having said all that—–

We have recently become aware of a prototype system currently being developed and tested by General Atomics in conjunction with the Lawrence Livermore Labs. This type of Mag-Lev propulsion relies heavily on advanced-alloy permanent magnets, which of course use no power once built and installed. This technology offers the promise of cheaper construction and greater energy economy than does regular Mag-Lev, which is all-electromagnetic in design. For more Urban Mag-Lev information,

Consult:   Don Oppenheimer at  oppyds@prodigy.net.

(Published As Op Ed, Albuquerque Journal, August 5, 2009)

Now that the City Council has passed the extension of the Famous  Transportation Tax to the voters for consideration in October, we Urban Rail advocates have our work cut out for us.

Most of us finally know we need more and better transit. Most of the world, plus a few of Albuquerque’s leaders, are aware that Rail must be a part of all this. And yet a smog of suspicion and doubt hangs over Albuquerque concerning the very transportation solution already long since embraced by most of our sister cities—cities of all political reputations..

Why has Rail become a four-letter word in Albuquerque, and what can be done to change this? Absent conspiracy theories, I see these reasons for this impasse:

1)  A brainwash-inspired fear of taxation, good or bad; the roots of which are worth a few Op Eds in their own right;

2)  Our nearsighted obsession with up-front cost alone at the expense of long-term benefit;

3)  Contention between the Mayor and the City Council, complicated by the political ambitions of several Councilors;

4)  The focus of our pro-Rail political leaders on a Downtown-Nob Hill Streetcar line and its benefits to development along this route.

The first three of these deserve a lot of attention somewhere, but let’s explore the fourth here:

The latest hot-potato Streetcar proposal (Central between Atrisco and San Mateo) is not a bad Rail beginning for Albuquerque (see Streetcar II, etc, Journal, April 6), but to us at Rails Inc, not the best one for the whole city. Nor do we think it’s been effectively presented to the Albuquerque public. The 21st Century Transportation Task Force heard several Streetcar presentations, all of which were geared to rejuvenation along “Inner” Central and nearby neighborhoods (a process already underway anyhow). Little attention was paid to the many virtues of Rail transit as good transportation for everybody.

We believe this narrowly considered approach, with its lack of attention to the needs (and the politics) of most of the city, has set back the cause of Rail transit in Albuquerque; possibly for years. So what now? Let’s try these:

1)  Have an easily understood transit plan:  Where should our transit corridors be? When?  Why?  For whom?  What goals do we want transit to help achieve? How do we want to change our land-use patterns?  How daring or innovative do we want to be?

2)  Make new transit projects serve this plan:  How would the various types of transit vehicles and infrastructure serve our stated goals? How would Rail or better bus service contribute to the expansion of transit into all neighborhoods? What’s the best deal for the taxpayer in the long run?

3)  Look at creative funding:   A good example of this is the private sector.  Several cities have started successful Streetcar lines funded by the businesses who stand to benefit from same. As to neighborhood transit; private shuttle, “colectívo” and “jitney” services operate successfully all over the world. For these  of course we’d have to have in place a stringent inspection program for both vehicles and operators.

4)  Present the plan and its component projects to the general public with regard to their benefits to the general public:  Let’s talk about fuel / energy economy, less congestion, greater passenger-mile capacity per ton of materials and acre of land, smooth on-time performance, the tire disposal problem, long system life and low maintenance. A lot of people can relate to these.

The rejuvenation of Central may be just the ticket for Albuquerque (or not), but our far-flung public, right or wrong, doesn’t care. Most of us are not developers. What we care about in transportation is safety, reliability, low long-term cost, greater health and cleanliness, peace of mind — and the hundreds of our dollars a month freed up by not needing our cars for essential everyday use (there’s a Stimulus for you).

We Rail advocates already know that extensive Rail-anchored transit will achieve all of the above and more. We also know that the cost of your transit ticket, added to your share of a Rail-anchored transit tax, is still a huge bargain compared to needing your car every day (think instant $4.00-an-hour raise).

We know all this, but so far we’ve done a poor job of convincing most of our fellow Albuquerqueans. Let’s back up and start over.

(Published in the Weekly Alibi, September 3-9, 2009)

On June 22, the City Council passed the extension of our Famous Transportation Tax along to the voters for consideration in October. A reasonable and democratic-minded course of action, unless you count the arbitrary anti-Rail pre-conditions and exclusions offered by a couple of Councilors. But with or without these “amendments”, Rail transit’s in trouble in Albuquerque.

How did Rail become a four-letter word in Albuquerque (and Albuquerque almost alone), and what can we Rail advocates do to reverse this ?

Rails Inc sees several reasons for this impasse, absent conspiracy theories. These include our American obsession with up-front cost at the expense of long-term gain, our brainwash-inspired fear of all taxation (good or bad), and Mayor-Council rivalries. These three reasons are worth a lot of ink somewhere, but I’d like to examine a fourth:

Tactical mistakes from our side.

We need Rail transit for a stunning number of reasons, reasons I and others have cited in these pages. Most of our Western sister cities, of all political colors, have acted on this knowledge to great benefit for their people, their economies and their environments. So what’s our problem? Here’s one example:

The 21st Century Transportation Task Force (I was a member) heard several Streetcar presentations, geared primarily toward its benefits for rejuvenation along “Inner” Central. Little attention was paid to the various other benefits —-Good Transportation benefits —- of the Streetcar, and almost none to other Rail modes like Light Rail or Urban Mag Lev, or to other possible routes like Lomas Or I-40.

Thanks to this narrowly-considered process and its shallow treatment by the media in general, most of our city’s far-flung people have no idea of what Rail can do for them. Albuquerque’s transit argument has been “bumper-stickered” to mean little more than Streetcar On Central vs. No Streetcar On Central.

This is how Rails Inc thinks we can get local urban Rail back on track (sorry):

Establish and publicize a long-term transit plan.  We need to agree on a coherent and easily-understood program addressing questions like Where, What, Why and for Whom? What kinds of land use changes are we after? Would we rather be innovators or followers?

Fit all transit proposals to this plan. What are the comparative virtues and drawbacks of Streetcar, Light Rail, Mag Lev and various sizes of busses?  What are the long-run costs and benefits (I said Long Run, not tomorrow morning)?  How do we tie the modes together seamlessly? What about neighborhood transit?

Promote all proposals, especially Rail proposals, with regard to their benefits to the entire city and to our visitors.  Most of us are not residents —-or developers —- of Downtown, UNM or Nob Hill. What about fuel / energy economy? Smooth on-time ride? Connections to important destinations? Reduction of death, injury, congestion and pollution? thrifty use of land and materials? Low maintenance? Long system life? Is Modern Streetcar the best kind of Rail to start out with? Is Central the best place to stick it?

Besides Rail freaks like us, a few of our local leaders and more than a few regular people know that Rail is essential to achieve the above benefits. Some of us have our own pet ideas as to what kind of Rail to put in first and where to put it. What we haven’t done yet is to convince enough Albuquerqueans and enough of their City Councilors just how damn right we are.

We need to start over.  Rails Inc can be reached at: rails@nmrails.org.

JW Madison