getting on board with amtrak's needs

[yarrow]

getting on board with amtrak's needs

 

[the_traveler]

Not to get political, but at least he is for expanding Amtrak and has used trains during campaigning, while the others have either said nothing or want to get rid of Amtrak! And what would the "gas tax holiday" accomplish? People would drive more and use more of the gas, and then when the "holiday" ends the price will be higher! (And part of the increase may be from the oil companies "to make up for lost profits"! )

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Gas prices are high now, yes, but please, lets not saint Obama, nor demonize the oil companies. The prices are high because of speculators in oil futures, and greatly increased demand for oil. They are not profiteering, although they are making a nice profit. If they were to cut their profit in half, I'd imagine gas would go down in price a surprisingly small amount.

 

[AlanB]

They are not profiteering, although they are making a nice profit. If they were to cut their profit in half, I'd imagine gas would go down in price a surprisingly small amount.

I'd say that earning $70 Billion collectively over the last two quarters is profiteering. It's certainly a lot more than just "a nice profit."

 

[AmtrakWPK]

Amen. Profit of more than 35 years' worth of funding funding for Amtrak in just a half-year is a pretty large chunk of change, and it comes out of our pockets. I see no rational way to look at it differently. Record cost to us = record profits to them, no matter how they rationalize it. Their spin-doctors have obviously read P.T. Barnum and taken it to the limit.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

They are not profiteering, although they are making a nice profit. If they were to cut their profit in half, I'd imagine gas would go down in price a surprisingly small amount.

I'd say that earning $70 Billion collectively over the last two quarters is profiteering. It's certainly a lot more than just "a nice profit."

Its all in the numbers. In '07 we consumed approximately 20,730,000 barrels of oil a day. That works out 870,660,000 gallons of oil. A day. That means that in a quarter, 91 days, we consume 79,230,060,000 gallons of oil. If big oil is making $35,000,000,000 per quarter, than they are making 44.17¢ a gallon, on average. Thats hardly profiteering!

Hell, wipe out their profit. If they make 1 cent a gallon, 8 billion a quarter, than gas at my local station would now cost $3.21 instead of $3.64! Oh gee, I'm in the money now!

 

[AlanB]

They are not profiteering, although they are making a nice profit. If they were to cut their profit in half, I'd imagine gas would go down in price a surprisingly small amount.

I'd say that earning $70 Billion collectively over the last two quarters is profiteering. It's certainly a lot more than just "a nice profit."

Its all in the numbers. In '07 we consumed approximately 20,730,000 barrels of oil a day. That works out 870,660,000 gallons of oil. A day. That means that in a quarter, 91 days, we consume 79,230,060,000 gallons of oil. If big oil is making $35,000,000,000 per quarter, than they are making 44.17¢ a gallon, on average. Thats hardly profiteering!

Hell, wipe out their profit. If they make 1 cent a gallon, 8 billion a quarter, than gas at my local station would now cost $3.21 instead of $3.64! Oh gee, I'm in the money now!

About the only thing that I agree with in your entire statement is that "it is all in the numbers". And the first rule of statistics is that you can make them say anything you want if you just work hard enough and long enough.

Sure, trivialized like you've presented things it doesn't seem like a lot, and that assumes that the numbers that you've reported are correct. But to a family that's trying to figure out how to get dad to work each week while still putting food on the table, that 43 cents on a gallon profit is a lot of money. In fact based upon one 15 gallon fill up per week, that's $335 per year that they can't spend on food.

And then you're not calculating the impact of those 43 cents on everything else in life. Things like higher electricity prices, higher food costs, higher clothing costs, and just about everything else that is impacted by the higher fuel costs. To an average family, that could well represent several thousand dollars by the end of the year.

Finally, since you like small numbers, if one used to make a 10 cent per gallon profit and is now making a 40 cent per gallon profit, that's a 75% increase. The definition of profiteering is taking an excessive profit on something. I'd say that a 75% increase, even if the increase is on pennies, is still excessive.

 

[abqdave]

I feel for people who have to drive a lot and don't have alternatives. I am fortunate to live in a big city that has a public transit system, and I live right on a bus line that runs frequently, so I am able to use it everyday.

There are some creative ideas out there to help with the cost of transportation. Here, two colleges (including the one I work at) give their students free bus passes, and discounts for employees. So I pay only $20 per month for traveling back and forth to work. There are other employers here (such as hospitals) who also do free or discounted passes for their employees. This also helps combat global climate change.

I hope more employers would do this. I know this doesn't directly help people who don't live in cities, but if more city dwellers used existing public transportation, it would decrease gas demand, which should lower prices for everyone else. As another post pointed out, even if Amtrak got a sudden massive increase in funding, it would take years to manufacture the new equipment.

It makes sense to maximize use of what public transportation we already have, either by employers or the government giving subsidies, to help drive demand for gas down and lower prices for everyone else.

 

[the_traveler]

When I transfered to RI with my Government job, I had a choice of locations to report to. One was about 25 miles from my house, the other was about 40 miles from my house. I chose the location 40 miles away!

Why? :huh:

The location 25 miles away, while having free parking, would have required me to drive 50 miles each day. The one 40 miles away, while in downtown and would require paid parking, was 1 1/2 blocks from a bus stop and I could get the bus within 1/2 mile from my house. And best of all, even though it is a "city" bus, during rush hour, there are only 2 stops to get there! Even better, my employer provided a subsidy to take the bus! And the subsidy amount was over the fare for the bus pass!

So my choice was spend $$$ to drive 50+ miles each day or spend $-0- to take the bus to work each day! Hmm? :blink:

I wish more employers would provide a choice.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

They are not profiteering, although they are making a nice profit. If they were to cut their profit in half, I'd imagine gas would go down in price a surprisingly small amount.

I'd say that earning $70 Billion collectively over the last two quarters is profiteering. It's certainly a lot more than just "a nice profit."

Its all in the numbers. In '07 we consumed approximately 20,730,000 barrels of oil a day. That works out 870,660,000 gallons of oil. A day. That means that in a quarter, 91 days, we consume 79,230,060,000 gallons of oil. If big oil is making $35,000,000,000 per quarter, than they are making 44.17¢ a gallon, on average. Thats hardly profiteering!

Hell, wipe out their profit. If they make 1 cent a gallon, 8 billion a quarter, than gas at my local station would now cost $3.21 instead of $3.64! Oh gee, I'm in the money now!

About the only thing that I agree with in your entire statement is that "it is all in the numbers". And the first rule of statistics is that you can make them say anything you want if you just work hard enough and long enough.

Sure, trivialized like you've presented things it doesn't seem like a lot, and that assumes that the numbers that you've reported are correct. But to a family that's trying to figure out how to get dad to work each week while still putting food on the table, that 43 cents on a gallon profit is a lot of money. In fact based upon one 15 gallon fill up per week, that's $335 per year that they can't spend on food.

And then you're not calculating the impact of those 43 cents on everything else in life. Things like higher electricity prices, higher food costs, higher clothing costs, and just about everything else that is impacted by the higher fuel costs. To an average family, that could well represent several thousand dollars by the end of the year.

Finally, since you like small numbers, if one used to make a 10 cent per gallon profit and is now making a 40 cent per gallon profit, that's a 75% increase. The definition of profiteering is taking an excessive profit on something. I'd say that a 75% increase, even if the increase is on pennies, is still excessive.

Profit is usually considered as a percentage. The price of putting the fuel to the pump increased 75%. Profit did the same. It really isn't profiteering. Profiteering would be increasing your percentage.

 

[RobertF]

They are not profiteering, although they are making a nice profit. If they were to cut their profit in half, I'd imagine gas would go down in price a surprisingly small amount.

I'd say that earning $70 Billion collectively over the last two quarters is profiteering. It's certainly a lot more than just "a nice profit."

Its all in the numbers. In '07 we consumed approximately 20,730,000 barrels of oil a day. That works out 870,660,000 gallons of oil. A day. That means that in a quarter, 91 days, we consume 79,230,060,000 gallons of oil. If big oil is making $35,000,000,000 per quarter, than they are making 44.17¢ a gallon, on average. Thats hardly profiteering!

Hell, wipe out their profit. If they make 1 cent a gallon, 8 billion a quarter, than gas at my local station would now cost $3.21 instead of $3.64! Oh gee, I'm in the money now!

About the only thing that I agree with in your entire statement is that "it is all in the numbers". And the first rule of statistics is that you can make them say anything you want if you just work hard enough and long enough.

Sure, trivialized like you've presented things it doesn't seem like a lot, and that assumes that the numbers that you've reported are correct. But to a family that's trying to figure out how to get dad to work each week while still putting food on the table, that 43 cents on a gallon profit is a lot of money. In fact based upon one 15 gallon fill up per week, that's $335 per year that they can't spend on food.

And then you're not calculating the impact of those 43 cents on everything else in life. Things like higher electricity prices, higher food costs, higher clothing costs, and just about everything else that is impacted by the higher fuel costs. To an average family, that could well represent several thousand dollars by the end of the year.

Finally, since you like small numbers, if one used to make a 10 cent per gallon profit and is now making a 40 cent per gallon profit, that's a 75% increase. The definition of profiteering is taking an excessive profit on something. I'd say that a 75% increase, even if the increase is on pennies, is still excessive.

Oh Whaaaaaaaa... someone call the wambulance because some big bad oil company is making a profit. Oh the evils of oil...

BLECHHHHH....

Holly cow, I'm sick of cry babies. Other places have and are paying much more for fuel. Try buying fuel in Europe for under $4 a gallon, I dare you!

We have been spoiled with low fuel prices for a very long time. What is the inflation adjusted price of gas these days compared to, say , 40 years ago? What is the overall profit of the big "Oil" as a percentage of sales? Is it excessive? No! In fact, their profit margins are much lower than other companies. But they are easy targets... big money in any form is always an easy target, an attractive target, because we can STEAL (e.g. TAX) from them. Let's look for the big pockets and rob from them. Robin Hood is alive and well and looking to build a constituency on someone else's money.

Honestly if a person's life is so on the edge that $355 a YEAR means the difference between food or no food, then they have much bigger problems than the price of oil, and they should not be driving a car in the first place because they probably can't afford it anyway. They should be finding a second job at Dominoes delivering Pizza 2-3 days a week, paying off the insane amounts of debt they have accumulated.... And don't go telling me they are unemployed because at 5% unemployment nationwide thats not quite the case. Don't cry to me that they shouldn't have to take a second job because thats life brother, and if you are broke you go get a second job. I did a long time ago when I was broke. In fact, I still hold down probably 5 different jobs right now (but thats because they all pay me insane amounts of money!)

What about all the shareholders in these big bad oil companies... which likely include some, if not most, of your retirement funds.... What is the unintended consequence of increasing taxes on the "Big Oil" companies .... wine wine wine... We all want someone to blame for our own stupidity and lack of vision. We all want someone to blame, instead of blaming ourselves.

How abouts we point the fingers at ourselves. Spoiled at low gas prices. Yell and complain and not allow any refineries to be built.... moan and groan about foreign oil when we could be drilling locally but environmental lobbies wail and moan and we shirk out of fear and miss-information... Oh you generation of complaining, wining, finger pointing , silly, economically clueless, leftest leaning, didn't bother to pick yourself up and make something of yourself, cry babies and the politico's and left wing press that are pandering to you. Too much time on your hands. Go get a job (or a second job if need be) so you will stop being so broke and quit wasting your time dreaming about what you don't have (or going into debt to get it) and wanting to take my hard earned dollars at gun point! If you don't have the gumption to do that, then shut-up already. You have made your choice.

:angry:

As for me, I just saved a load of money by switching to Gieco.

 

[D.P. Roberts]

Holly cow, I'm sick of cry babies. Other places have and are paying much more for fuel. Try buying fuel in Europe for under $4 a gallon, I dare you!
How abouts we point the fingers at ourselves. Spoiled at low gas prices. Yell and complain and not allow any refineries to be built.... moan and groan about foreign oil when we could be drilling locally but environmental lobbies wail and moan and we shirk out of fear and miss-information... Oh you generation of complaining, wining, finger pointing , silly, economically clueless, leftest leaning, didn't bother to pick yourself up and make something of yourself, cry babies and the politico's and left wing press that are pandering to you.

What's ironic about your statements is that those same European countries where gas is so expensive are, for the most part, "leftist leaning", and more environmentally friendly. And most of them have social safety nets. And they also have more trains, which generally run on time. And in many places, they make fine "wine" too.

 

[RobertF]

Holly cow, I'm sick of cry babies. Other places have and are paying much more for fuel. Try buying fuel in Europe for under $4 a gallon, I dare you!
How abouts we point the fingers at ourselves. Spoiled at low gas prices. Yell and complain and not allow any refineries to be built.... moan and groan about foreign oil when we could be drilling locally but environmental lobbies wail and moan and we shirk out of fear and miss-information... Oh you generation of complaining, wining, finger pointing , silly, economically clueless, leftest leaning, didn't bother to pick yourself up and make something of yourself, cry babies and the politico's and left wing press that are pandering to you.

What's ironic about your statements is that those same European countries where gas is so expensive are, for the most part, "leftist leaning", and more environmentally friendly. And most of them have social safety nets. And they also have more trains, which generally run on time. And in many places, they make fine "wine" too.

The train economy in Europe vs. that here in the states is so different. I love trains, I love Amtrak, but really... you can't compare the US to Europe. It's just not the same playing field for a number of reasons.

I still can't understand why people insist on comparing the two. Europe isn't the great train panacea that everyone seems to want to believe it is IMHO. Try getting a *single* train from Libson to, say, Rome. You can't.

While OTOH, I can get MORE than one train from Chicago to LA.

I grant you that they have trains everywhere with respect to smaller distances in a lot of cases. I also grant you that from a commuting point of view we do have some catch up to do in the states, but I think we are working on it.

 

[RobertF]

Holly cow, I'm sick of cry babies. Other places have and are paying much more for fuel. Try buying fuel in Europe for under $4 a gallon, I dare you!
How abouts we point the fingers at ourselves. Spoiled at low gas prices. Yell and complain and not allow any refineries to be built.... moan and groan about foreign oil when we could be drilling locally but environmental lobbies wail and moan and we shirk out of fear and miss-information... Oh you generation of complaining, wining, finger pointing , silly, economically clueless, leftest leaning, didn't bother to pick yourself up and make something of yourself, cry babies and the politico's and left wing press that are pandering to you.

What's ironic about your statements is that those same European countries where gas is so expensive are, for the most part, "leftist leaning", and more environmentally friendly. And most of them have social safety nets. And they also have more trains, which generally run on time. And in many places, they make fine "wine" too.

So, your point is that being leftist makes you more environmentally friendly? That having social safety nets makes the trains run on time? That they drink wine instead of buy gas? That they drink wine on a train so they forget the 70% tax rate bite coming out of their checks for that social safety net and all the requisite waste and corruption?

I don't get your point...

 

[the_traveler]

I still can't understand why people insist on comparing the two. Europe isn't the great train panacea that everyone seems to want to believe it is IMHO. Try getting a *single* train from Libson to, say, Rome. You can't.
While OTOH, I can get MORE than one train from Chicago to LA.

I grant you that they have trains everywhere with respect to smaller distances in a lot of cases.

I agree with you to a point.

Yes, you have more than one train from CHI to LAX, but try to get from DEN-ABQ or ELP-ABQ (a comparable distance to many European runs) in less than 2 days and going almost 1/2 way across the US! Or try to go from HOS-TPA without at least 3 trains!

 

[RobertF]

I still can't understand why people insist on comparing the two. Europe isn't the great train panacea that everyone seems to want to believe it is IMHO. Try getting a *single* train from Libson to, say, Rome. You can't.
While OTOH, I can get MORE than one train from Chicago to LA.

I grant you that they have trains everywhere with respect to smaller distances in a lot of cases.

I agree with you to a point.

Yes, you have more than one train from CHI to LAX, but try to get from DEN-ABQ or ELP-ABQ (a comparable distance to many European runs) in less than 2 days and going almost 1/2 way across the US! Or try to go from HOS-TPA without at least 3 trains!

No doubt... the US is not a train panacea either. But I'm not sure one could justify a DEM-ABQ or ELP-ABQ route either. Maybe, maybe not. It may well be that a bus route for these two makes more sense or if ridership allows, then perhaps rail. What we need are some metrics that clearly define what makes for a good train route, and what does not. It's clear that some routes have demand enough that the states are willing to pony up money to fund them. I'm not sure this is the only metric when determining that a given (money loosing) route is in the best interest of the country, but it is certainly one.

I'm all for Amtrak. Partly because I selfishly want the US to subsidize my enjoyment of long distance rail travel. I'm also all for congress budgeting money to Amtrak because I think it's a critical national resource and I think it's been way under budgeted way to long. We just need to apply some common sense to where we run, and what we spend. That is something I'm not sure we have demonstrated the ability to do as a country.

Given our incredible levels of debt (I wonder what the US's FICO score would be), robbing from the "rich" to redistribute wealth and build political constituencies (and having no qualms about it thank you) and the clear inability to control spending on everything under the sun.... well, it all worries me. Show me fiscal restraint and responsibility, reasonable cost controls and I'll feel better about giving a flat, say, 15% of my income to the feds for such things (as long as everyone else does).

 

[D.P. Roberts]

So, your point is that being leftist makes you more environmentally friendly? That having social safety nets makes the trains run on time? That they drink wine instead of buy gas? That they drink wine on a train so they forget the 70% tax rate bite coming out of their checks for that social safety net and all the requisite waste and corruption?
I don't get your point...

My point is that you went on and on about how you and your political views are far superior to those of Americans younger than you (in your words, "Oh you generation of wining, finger pointing, silly, economically clueless, leftest leaning..."). In your whole diatribe against young people, you give the strong impression that the entire country is falling apart, due largely to the fact that the younger generations' political views are too liberal and more in line with most Europeans than with your beliefs. And yet you give only one positive examples of people who are apparently "better" than here in America: "Holly cow, I'm sick of cry babies. Other places have and are paying much more for fuel. Try buying fuel in Europe for under $4 a gallon, I dare you!"

So, I just pointed out that the same people you laud for paying high gas prices without being "cry babies" tend to generally disagree with your political views on these same subjects. Furthermore - and just to keep things focused on trains - their train systems are generally better than ours too.

 

[RobertF]

So, your point is that being leftist makes you more environmentally friendly? That having social safety nets makes the trains run on time? That they drink wine instead of buy gas? That they drink wine on a train so they forget the 70% tax rate bite coming out of their checks for that social safety net and all the requisite waste and corruption?
I don't get your point...

My point is that you went on and on about how you and your political views are far superior to those of Americans younger than you (in your words, "Oh you generation of wining, finger pointing, silly, economically clueless, leftest leaning..."). In your whole diatribe against young people, you give the strong impression that the entire country is falling apart, due largely to the fact that the younger generations' political views are too liberal and more in line with most Europeans than with your beliefs. And yet you give only one positive examples of people who are apparently "better" than here in America: "Holly cow, I'm sick of cry babies. Other places have and are paying much more for fuel. Try buying fuel in Europe for under $4 a gallon, I dare you!"

So, I just pointed out that the same people you laud for paying high gas prices without being "cry babies" tend to generally disagree with your political views on these same subjects. Furthermore - and just to keep things focused on trains - their train systems are generally better than ours too.

I wasn't talking just about young people. Plenty of 40/50/60 somethings that qualify .... I didn't say the country is falling apart, but I am very concerned about it's direction. We have had politicians (many much older than me) who for YEARS have been busy stealing... I mean borrowing... so they can spend, spend and spend. They very much qualify for my rant. We have them to thank for a Social Security system (which I question the need for in the first place) that is broke broke broke. Europe is great if you like most of your paycheck consumed by taxes, if you like the hours you can work to be controlled by the government (as in a few countries), if you like waiting in line at doctors and hospitals... by all means, let's move in that direction!

If my trip to Birmingham, UK about 6 years ago (I've done maybe 4 Europe train rides, not a big sample I grant you) is any indication, then I'm not sure how great it is. I paid for a first class ticket, got on the train (middle of winter) to find out there was no HEAT in the entire train. Watching my breath on the trip was great fun, I'll tell you.

Nowhere is perfect, nor will it ever be. Fortunately, at least here in the US I have the right to say what I will. While most (if not all) of Europe affords those liberties, many other places in the world do not.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Blech. Our past 8 years have been dominated by a right-wing, born-again-christian, we-are-holier-than-anyone-because-we-think-the-Right Way™, war-is-right-against-those-who-disagree nut job. We now find ourselves in the biggest ****-hole we have ever been in, with more crap being piled on top of us every day. Our economy is failing, every single politician seems more interested in getting re-elected than doing their job, everybody is exhausting themselves making it look like they are doing something, and nothing is being accomplished.

Infact, I've decided to sit here and launch my new campaign for president of the United States. My first act will be to invoke marshall law, disband a group of whiney, inept, slimey old men (Congress), and a bunch of people who pretend to be politically unbiased but are in fact not (the Supreme Court). A who comes to me suggesting that I back or sign for a project that is designed for some two-bit group of looneys, but benefits nobody else, will be beheaded. Anyone who is found to be sitting around whining about something really stupid, such as the fate of Terry Schaivo, will also be beheaded.

With this now put in place, I am going to do something long over due. I will declare the United States to be, in fact, bankrupt. Because let me tell you, at about 9.4 trillion dollars in debt, I think we can realistically say we will never be able to pay back this outstanding balance! I will declare US treasury bonds to be worthless sheets of soon-to-be-recycled garbage. Anyone who whines about this will be beheaded. Such people won't notice anyway.

Taxes will be raised considerably. They will, in fact, be raised to about 50% of income. For this citizens will be perpetually granted food on their plate, a place to live, a nice retirement, and proper medical care. People who want more than this will have to make it on their own. Anybody who whines about this will be... shot. (Hey, the guillotines are working overtime, we need other ways of doing this!)

Other countries will now be allowed to operate on the political system of their choosing. We will no longer intervene in their affairs. We will no longer threaten them, cajole them, or otherwise force them to give us advantages we don't deserve. Anybody who whines about the loss of our so-called "greatness" and status as a "Superpower" will be electrocuted.

Finally, with this system in place, a new constitution will be drawn up. The key law of this new nation is that whining is a capitol crime, resulting in summary execution. The next will create a new congress. That congress will be elected, but must demonstrate that they have an IQ of at least 140 in order to become a candidate. Improper conduct in office will be a capitol crime, punishable by death. That congress will get a nice suite of rooms in a building, nice food, free transportation to and from the office, and carefully approved travel elsewhere. They will be entitled to a nice retirement fund. They will receive a salary of $5 a year. Any additional money gained will result in execution. Camapaigns will be limited to $10,000, given by the government itself. Campaign contributions are verboten.

The President will be given similarly but more, and be required to have an IQ of 160 in order to become a candidate. (Naturally I will be personally exempt from this so that I can be elected to congress and possibly the presidency again...) The Supreme Court will be a highly advanced AI system designed by me. Anything that sounds like whining will result in being boiled in oil.

Vote for me.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

I think any of the three leading presidential candidates would do a better job than Green Maned Lion.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

*shoves aside real issues*

"Free Amtrak sleeper class travel for all!"?

 

[abqdave]

No doubt... the US is not a train panacea either. But I'm not sure one could justify a DEM-ABQ or ELP-ABQ route either. Maybe, maybe not. It may well be that a bus route for these two makes more sense or if ridership allows, then perhaps rail. What we need are some metrics that clearly define what makes for a good train route, and what does not. It's clear that some routes have demand enough that the states are willing to pony up money to fund them. I'm not sure this is the only metric when determining that a given (money loosing) route is in the best interest of the country, but it is certainly one.

Whoops...we definitely need both DEN-ABQ and ELP-ABQ routes...after all, I need to visit my sister in Aurora and need to eat the yummy Mexican food at the outdoor stalls in Juarez. We also need ABQ-AMARILLO with a stop in Tucumcari, so GSWager can jump on and visit that steak house near Amarillo that will give you the steak for free if you can eat the whole thing!

Seriously, though, there was a post a few months back covering the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission (NSTPRSC) report Transportation for Tomorrow. The commission did recommend a DEN-ABQ-ELP route.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Is there existing track on the DEN-ABQ-ELP route that's maintained to standards that would allow for reasonable passenger service?

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

*shoves aside real issues*
"Free Amtrak sleeper class travel for all!"?

Will that be in a train that averages at least 150 MPH when travelling from Boston to the left coast?

 

[abqdave]

Is there existing track on the DEN-ABQ-ELP route that's maintained to standards that would allow for reasonable passenger service?

I am not sure. Part of it (Trinidad, CO to Belen, NM) is the current route of the Southwest Chief, as I am sure you know, so I assume that is 79 or 90 mph track. I believe the entire route would run on all BNSF track (except the state of NM purchased the right-of-way from Raton, NM to Belen for the RailRunner commuter train project). I have personally only ridden from ABQ to Belen on the commuter train...it rocked back-and-forth more than I expected, but to be fair the last time I had ridden a train was at least 20 years before that, so I just may not be remembering what trains are like.

The NSTPRSC report showed it as 79 mph service.