Author Archives: admin

(Or, What Good Are Those Tracks?)

May 2012

Background:

As you may have heard, the present alignment of the SW Chief is not assured beyond the next couple of years. At risk is the segment that runs from Newton, KS to Lamy, NM (636 track miles). The BNSF Railway, which owns these tracks, does not need to operate on this route (when they do at all) faster than 45 mph. This means they don’t have to keep the tracks up to the 80+ mph standard desired by Amtrak for passenger trains.  Which in turn means that the SW Chief is slowly getting slower and slower.

Somebody needs to come up with about $ 100 million to restore the track to 80 mph  (“Class 4”)standards and a few more million a year to keep them that way. I say a few more because rails last a lot longer and require much less repair than do roads and highways.

Since this track segment is presently used for very little besides two SW Chief  trains a day, a lot of sensible people (and their political leaders) might reasonably wonder, why the hell spend this kind of money just to keep two trains a day running —- especially since an alternate route through Wichita, Northwest Oklahoma, Amarillo, Eastern NM and Belen will be available for rerouting the Chief should the need arise.

Besides the fact that the Chief is an all-important transportation resource to the three states in question, Rails Inc feels that those tracks are a very attractive resource for anybody — private or public —  who owns and is willing to upgrade them and who can imagine more than a couple of years (or an election cycle) into the future.

Here’s what we mean:

(Adapted From the Rail Users’ Network National Newsletter, Spring 2012):

Several cities and towns along the (Newton KS-Lamy NM) route have passed and are passing resolutions supporting their desire to keep the Chief running where it is, citing the many benefits the train confers on their communities. A New Mexico branch of the SW Chief Coalition (based in La Junta CO) is putting itself together. The purchase by the State of New Mexico from the BNSF of the Raton Pass-Lamy track segment is still in limbo, where it has resided since the Martinez administration took over.

While we don’t believe the tracks are in danger of being torn up and scrapped (although this is a possibility), Rails Inc feels that to save the Chief we need to save the tracks, and to save the tracks we need to demonstrate what a great asset they are. So “with a little help from our friends”, we’ve compiled a list of uses for these tracks — beyond the important function of hosting two Amtrak trains a day.

Those two daily SW Chief trains by themselves justify the existence and improvement these tracks are in need of, but they certainly don’t constitute full and efficient use of the route.

So What Are Those Tracks Good For? 

1)   Hosting the SW Chief, of course.

2)   Hosting future Amtrak Superliner (or similar) service from El Paso to Denver and points North, via Albuquerque, Raton and Pueblo (see our “Rocky Mountain Flyer” material at www.nmrails.org or Rail magazine, #25).

3)   Establishment or expansion of commuter and regional Rail in the three affected states.

4)   Restoration of rail freight and express. The costs of fuel, tires and asphalt are not dropping.  Private haulers, short lines and entrepreneurs might find this an acceptable risk if they don’t have to buy and own the tracks.  Truckers don’t have to own the roads they run on.

5)   Excursion trains, both modern and vintage.  Besides their educational and cultural value, they can make pretty good money.

6)   Hosting the field testing of new Rail safety components and other Rail products.

7)   Hosting BNSF trains again, if anything happens to the Transcon.

8)   Not to forget:  Promoting the increased economic development, core-city renewal and tourism (with their considerable employment and tax revenues) that improved Rail transportation always pulls in.

It has also been suggested to us that advocates should compile a list of potential users of these tracks (towns, cities, schools, ranches, tourist attractions, transportation companies, excursion trains, etc) and ask them how permanent and reliable access to said tracks might improve or expand their operations. From this, revenue estimates might be put together to increase the attractiveness of the segment to either private or public potential ownership.

In the short haul, like seeds and range land, we need to “bank” these tracks till we can put them to the full use they deserve. If we’re short-sighted enough to let them go, it’ll be like the late 40’s all over again.  Conventional, High Speed or Mag Lev, the future of this right of way should always be Rail.

20 March 2011

(Draft of a speech not yet delivered)

We can now safely declare that the Albuquerque metro area is finally behind more and better transit (although the People in general did beat them to it).  So now the central transportation issue in our region becomes how to anchor this expanded network — Bus or Train?  Most major Western cities have long since answered this one, in favor of the latter.

The title of this piece is misleading. “Versus” is not the right word.  There’s room for both Light Rail Transit (LRT), including Modern and Rapid Streetcar, and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) in a complete transit network. But BRT (meaning those custom-built trackless guideways) is a complement, not a substitute for LRT or Modern Streetcar.

There’s some logic to presenting BRT as a stepping-stone to LRT. BRT is better than nothing. But we believe we should quit treating Rail transit like political poison (even if it is). It’s just too good a solution to too many problems.

Modern Rail gets smeared a lot in New Mexico as Liberal or too expensive, and is also held to cost-benefit expectations never applied to other modes.  Any kind of modern Rail is a key component of good transportation, and good transportation is good for everybody. Here’s how urban trains compare to busses:

— Urban trains get 400-500% the fuel / energy “mileage”that busses do.

— Roads last for years; tracks last for generations.

— Ditto for busses compared to Rail cars.

— Rail lines are made out of “greener” materials; steel and rocks, not petroleum by-products (add this to your fuel economy).

— Rail carries 3 to 8 times the people (or freight) per lane-mile as do roads and streets.

— Rail transit recovers more money at the “farebox” than bus transit does.

— Rail facilitates walking and biking, as well as neighborhood bus transit.

— Trains are easier to secure than busses (meaning more effective deployment of police officers). Nobody can afford to put an officer on every bus, but you can do so for a train.  An Urban train operator doesn’t have to try to be a cop; just run the train.

— Rail facilitates the renewal of city centers and older suburbs.

— Rail promotes sustainable and efficient development. Since a Rail line is a lot harder to re-route than a bus line, developers can plan from a reliable permanent transportation anchor (This principle is at least 150 years old).

— Trains almost never get stuck in traffic, and offer a smooth, quiet ride compared to busses.

— Trains don’t spawn tire emission and disposal problems.

— Good multimodal transit saves regular full-time users about $7-800 / month, even after paying their share of transit taxes (This applies to bus-only transit too, but keep reading):

— Rail attracts riders of all ages, colors and economic levels, not just people who have no choice but to ride transit.

And here’s another one:  Rail transit easily complies with CMAQ and other pollution-control concerns; especially if—-as in, say, Calgary, Alberta—-the trains get all their power from renewable sources.

We don’t make this stuff up. Rail is the big “no-brainer” in transportation, energy and land use planning, and just about everybody but us already knows it. Thank you.

(While not directly about trains, we think this subject is closely related to them.)

5 April 2009

Renewably-generated electricity—-solar, wind, geothermal and the ocean tides—-is finally gaining acceptance and market share in America.  Put all this together with a similar revolution in the storage and steady delivery of this energy and just maybe some of us will live to see the relegation of the expensive killers Coal and Nuclear (Fission) to their places in history alongside other once-useful artifacts like the buggy whip and the carbide lamp.

There’s no denying that our lives are much easier and safer (and probably more fun) after over a century of reliable fossil-fueled electricity. But, as Olive Oyl once said to Popeye, “Too much is enough!”. We’ve got cleaner choices now.  Renewables have proven themselves.  Which is why writing the following makes me feel a little like the Ebeneezer Scrooge of renewable energy.

Having fooled around with wind generators in the early ‘70’s, and having long tried to promote “green” building (and re-building) as an old-house contractor, I’m naturally delighted with the rise of renewables.  But; as with most Great Issue discussions, sizable gaps reveal themselves. With regard to renewable electricity, most of the everyday buzz centers on two extremes of generating capability: small installations serving one household and great big ones serving widespread millions.

These extremes are but two legs of what should be a three-legged electricity production stool. Let’s gaze at these legs.

The Small Leg:

A power plant on every roof!  How feel-good and self-sufficiently All-American can you get? But, like hybrid cars and political term limits, this attractive notion reveals significant flaws upon further reflection. These flaws include lack of efficiency in labor, materials and invested energy per kilowatt realized; including the energy it takes to make, ship and deliver each set of components. There are other problems with this model:

—-  These home-size systems cost more than most of us can afford, even with generous tax breaks;

—-  They encourage rural sprawl;

—-  Sooner or later (probably later), each and every householder will have to face significant repair and replacement of system parts—-a kind of energy balloon payment.

The Big Leg: 

—-  The bigger and more wide-serving any piece of infrastructure is, the more disruption and damage can be inflicted on its dependents by a single natural disaster or act of war;

—-  Long-distance transmission of electricity is very expensive in materials and land (aluminum and easement acreage), subject to sabotage and theft (aluminum  again) and easily interrupted by storms;

—-  High-tension lines are being linked to radiation hazards;

—-  A lot of power is lost in transmission, “falls off the wires”, as it were. This loss of course increases with distance from the generator.

A Third Leg

There is a third way that gets less attention amid all the trendy buzz; the middle of the scale or third leg: generation at the town or community level. I consider the old power stations at Ratón and Algodónes to be excellent size examples. Use that model, only feed them renewables.

Besides optimizing the expenditure of money, materials, labor, transportation and acreage per kilowatt of delivered energy, there are other advantages to this mid-sized approach:

Environmental justice:  Dirty but supposedly essential industries are disproportionally located in poor and non-white neighborhoods, and the resulting outcry is rightfully growing.  But what if a necessary industry is clean and non-polluting, like a modest-sized solar or wind power plant?  Far from being an environmental justice problem, these things would be a desirable asset to most neighborhoods; especially the mixed-use, live-work communities now coming into their own again.

Ugly? Hell, they look a lot prettier than most necessary structures we put up with all around us.

There’s also a neighborly aspect to this distribution model; an aspect which promotes a sense of community and simplifies business transactions like billing problems and service calls. That billing manager or pole climber might be in your PTA or hang out at your favorite bar.

And to further turn “Not In My Back Yard” upside down, maybe our utility rates could be adjusted for distance from the plant, not unlike transit fare zones, and for analogous reasons. The further the power is sent, the more it should cost; subject of course to hardship, non-profit and essential-service exceptions.

I leave it to the many engineers among us to study and compare these various size-scale alternatives with respect to cost in labor and materials per kilowatt realized, efficient transmission, long-term maintenance and reliability, etc; and I hope somebody takes me up on this. I am no engineer, but my contractor’s gut tells me that by adding this mid-sized mindset to the others, we can avoid many of the dangers and expenses of operating primarily Real Big or Real Small.

2007

(From Albuquerque Residents For Modern Streetcar)

The proposed streetcar would improve Albuquerque’s mass transit system by enhancing overall mobility between the neighborhoods, businesses and major destinations along its route and attracting new riders to the transit system:

The Central Avenue 66 bus route gets the highest ridership of any route in the city and the buses used on it are frequently very crowded. A streetcar system would utilize vehicles that have a much higher capacity, produce zero emissions, are more reliable, quieter and are more user-friendly. By reducing the demand for bus service along the streetcar route, a lot of buses will be free for use elsewhere in the city.

Due to its knack of attracting riders, a streetcar system would also reduce automobile traffic and the demand for parking along the route. This would benefit anyone who travels into the area, whether it’s for work, school, or to have fun. Instead of searching for parking at every place you needed to get to, you can just park once and use the streetcar to get to your destination(s).

Modern streetcar systems are a sustainable operation, as they are very fuel-efficient and will entice people out of their automobiles to completely zero-emission vehicles. Rail systems have also been shown to increase bus usage:* as well as walking. This will help improve air quality as well as our quality of life and help reduce dependence on oil.

Finally, modern streetcars encourage high density, mixed-use development along their routes and support long-term economic growth for their cities. *** In cities that have built streetcar systems, hundreds of millions of dollars in development directly related to the streetcar line have been privately invested. Some cities have reported that their streetcar system generated more in increased sales tax revenues along the route than it cost to operate and maintain.

*      Check out these ridership numbers of the Portland Streetcar.

**    Does Light Rail “Rob” Bus Service. or Make It Prosper? — from Light Rail Now!

***  Read the development report from the Portland Streetcar website

A Historic Turnaround?

After a criminally long dry spell, the federal government has finally returned to passenger Rail as something worth paying attention to; not to mention supporting with our money. This support should be the proverbial no-brainer, given both public desire and the huge number of proven benefits afforded by Rail transportation; but then we’re the country that keeps fighting transportation and energy battles already being won just about everyplace else in the “civilized” world (this syndrome is worth a lot of ink, but someone else can spill that).

The decades since World War II have seen a steady downward slide for passenger Rail in America. There are plenty of reasons for this; our love for the supposed freedom of the automobile, suburban sprawl, the destruction of many of our Rail lines and of course the Interstate Highway System (built and maintained, by the way, through federal subsidy).

A good overland transportation system has been described as a Three-Legged Stool, with Road, Rail and Air being the legs. In America, the Rail leg has been carved up almost to destruction, and the increasingly alarming results of this butchery are finally becoming obvious to politicians, planners and regular people all across the political spectrum. But wait!

Passenger Rail Is Coming Back!

Cities all over the West (except for Albuquerque) can’t build Light Rail and Streetcar systems fast enough to satisfy public demand. Regional and commuter rail lines are being planned and built where no passenger Rail has existed for 50-60 years. Admittedly, the present state of the economy and its effect on municipal revenue streams is pinching these efforts, but they’re still creeping forward, and will pick up again (along with fuel and asphalt prices).

Aside: Long system life, low maintenance costs, stunning fuel / energy economy, smooth clean ride, huge tax and personal savings, compatibility with motorless transportation —-what’s not to like, right? Right?

This Rail renaissance is nationwide. Amtrak ridership has been increasing year by year at a rate that would delight the heart of any red-blooded business—-except, weirdly enough, Amtrak. The management of Amtrak seems to be having trouble with the Vision Thing — with making that long-overdue adjustment from bare survival to robust growth. Hard to blame them; if you’ve had your neck in a choking collar for long enough, it can be disorienting as hell when that collar is suddenly loosened.

What vision and planning does exist at this level is concentrated on new rolling stock for Amtrak and on several High Speed Rail (HSR) coridors scattered around the country. These are wonderful things, and we’d like to see them all in place tomorrow morning; after all, we are visionaries. But we think some official rail visionaries are getting ahead of themselves.

You Want Commonsense Conservatism? Here It Is:

If you look closely at a map of the Interstate Highway System, then at one of Amtrak, you won’t help but notice that the latter seems about half-built. This is because it is. Many important city-pairs and city-groups — El Paso / Albuquerque / Denver, for example — are not directly connected at all. Want to go to Denver by train? Welcome to Chicago. How about El Paso? Hello LA.

The first priority for our passenger Rail network should be — a network. Our country sorely lacks what some call a “Steel Interstate” or what our group calls a “Rail Interstate”. Our rails need to go everywhere our highways go, and our trains should not be spending half their trip time pulled over waiting for freights to rumble by. Another no-brainer. Or should I say, Duuuhh!

As to Amtrak’s aging rolling stock; we submit that more time running at speed and less time starting / stopping / idling would do wonders for that old equipment; not to mention the well-being of the passengers, the crew and the environment (works for traffic, works for trains).

In case we should develop an inferiority complex over our lack of widespread high-speed Rail service such as that enjoyed by Europe and Japan, not to worry; it’s not a complex at all! Our inferiority in this respect is quite real.

The passenger Rail picture in our country is finally getting a little brighter, but let’s put first things first. A bunch of boring old railroad track and gravel ballast doesn’t project the glamour of snazzy new rail cars and locomotives, but that’s where we have to start.

If we can ever re-establish a true national Rail network; one that actually goes most places at a predictable if modest 70-90 mph, and leave it unmolested for a while, we believe that We The People will love it, use it, and will almost certainly cough up the relatively modest sums needed to safely speed it up from there.

To Learn More:

www.nmrails.org
www.steelinterstate.org

May 2012

Background:

As you may have heard, the present alignment of the SW Chief is not assured beyond the next couple of years. At risk is the segment that runs from Newton, KS to Lamy, NM (636 track miles). The BNSF Railway, which owns these tracks, does not need to operate on this route (when they do at all) faster than 45 mph. This means they don’t have to keep the tracks up to the 80+ mph standard desired by Amtrak for passenger trains.  Which in turn means that the SW Chief is slowly getting slower and slower.

Somebody needs to come up with about $ 100 million to restore the track to 80 mph  (“Class 4”)standards and a few more million a year to keep them that way. I say a few more because rails last a lot longer and require much less repair than do roads and highways.

Since this track segment is presently used for very little besides two SW Chief  trains a day, a lot of sensible people (and their political leaders) might reasonably wonder, why the hell spend this kind of money just to keep two trains a day running —- especially since an alternate route through Wichita, Northwest Oklahoma, Amarillo, Eastern NM and Belen will be available for rerouting the Chief should the need arise.

Besides the fact that the Chief is an all-important transportation resource to the three states in question, Rails Inc feels that those tracks are a very attractive resource for anybody — private or public —  who owns and is willing to upgrade them and who can imagine more than a couple of years (or an election cycle) into the future.

Here’s what we mean:

(Adapted From the Rail Users’ Network National Newsletter, Spring 2012):

Several cities and towns along the (Newton KS-Lamy NM) route have passed and are passing resolutions supporting their desire to keep the Chief running where it is, citing the many benefits the train confers on their communities. A New Mexico branch of the SW Chief Coalition (based in La Junta CO) is putting itself together. The purchase by the State of New Mexico from the BNSF of the Raton Pass-Lamy track segment is still in limbo, where it has resided since the Martinez administration took over.

While we don’t believe the tracks are in danger of being torn up and scrapped (although this is a possibility), Rails Inc feels that to save the Chief we need to save the tracks, and to save the tracks we need to demonstrate what a great asset they are. So “with a little help from our friends”, we’ve compiled a list of uses for these tracks — beyond the important function of hosting two Amtrak trains a day.

Those two daily SW Chief trains by themselves justify the existence and improvement these tracks are in need of, but they certainly don’t constitute full and efficient use of the route. We think it will be hard to secure the future of this route without convincing potential funders and owners—private or public—that these tracks could (and should) be busy more or less full-time.

So What Are Those Tracks Good For? 

1)   Hosting the SW Chief, of course.

2)   Hosting future Amtrak Superliner (or similar) service from El Paso to Denver and points North, via Albuquerque, Raton and Pueblo (see our “Rocky Mountain Flyer” material at www.nmrails.org or Rail magazine, #25).

3)   Establishment or expansion of commuter and regional Rail in the three affected states.

4)   Restoration of rail freight and express. The costs of fuel, tires and asphalt are not dropping.  Private haulers, short lines and entrepreneurs might find this an acceptable risk if they don’t have to buy and own the tracks.  Truckers don’t have to own the roads they run on.

5)   Excursion trains, both modern and vintage.  Besides their educational and cultural value, they can make pretty good money.

6)   Hosting the field testing of new Rail safety components and other Rail products.

7)   Hosting BNSF trains again, if anything happens to the Transcon.

8)   Not to forget:  Promoting the increased economic development, core-city renewal and tourism (with their considerable employment and tax revenues) that improved Rail transportation always pulls in.

It has also been suggested to us that advocates should compile a list of potential users of these tracks (towns, cities, schools, ranches, tourist attractions, transportation companies, excursion trains, etc) and ask them how permanent and reliable access to said tracks might improve or expand their operations. From this, revenue estimates might be put together to increase the attractiveness of the segment to either private or public potential ownership.

In the short haul, like seeds and range land, we need to “bank” these tracks till we can put them to the full use they deserve. If we’re short-sighted enough to let them go, it’ll be like the late 40’s all over again.  Conventional, High Speed or Mag Lev, the future of this right of way should always be Rail.

• Clean air
• Clean water
• Fuel economy
• Energy economy
• Renewable energy
• Personal health and safety
• Public health and safety
• National safety
• Wise use of land
• Wise use of materials
• Low infrastructure maintenance
• Poverty reduction
• Deficit reduction  (federal, state, local, personal
• Sustainable economic development
• Land use reform
• Biking
• Walking
• Neighborhood transit
• Traffic congestion reduction
• Historic preservation
• Business and worker productivity
• Climate change control
• Reduction of Everyday Stress
• Security and law enforcement

Question:  What do all these issues have in common?

Answer:  Every last one is positively affected by modern passenger Rail.