Study adds steam to case for area commuter rail [Archive]

View Full Version : Study adds steam to case for area commuter rail

MannyIsGod

03-04-2005, 02:20 AM

Study adds steam to case for area commuter rail

Web Posted: 03/04/2005 12:00 AM CST

Patrick Driscoll
Express-News Staff Writer

A study nearing completion is fueling a long-held vision that commuter rail service between San Antonio and Austin is not only feasible — but necessary.

"I would be stunned if there is not passenger rail service in this corridor in the next 10 or 15 years," said Tullos Wells, chairman of the Austin-San Antonio Intermunicipal Commuter Rail District. "I would like to see it happen sooner than later."

The rail district board is scheduled today to review a draft of the study, which says linking the two cities by commuter rail makes sense. The draft updates a 1999 study that said the same thing. And since then, congestion on Interstate 35 has only gotten worse.

According to the new study:

Express trains could whoosh passengers as fast as 80 mph, getting them from downtown San Antonio to downtown Austin in 92 minutes. The same trip by car takes from 94 to 105 minutes during rush hour.

Trains could depart every hour to 90 minutes during the startup phases of service, which officials hope will be in 2009, and as frequently as 30 minutes after full service begins.

A one-way ticket could cost a maximum of $12, which would cover the entire 110-mile route from San Antonio's South Side to Georgetown. Fares would be lower for shorter distances and there would likely be discounts.

The study, expected to be finished next month, is nurturing hopes for some board members, who say it provides good reason to seek more details and hunt for federal and local funds to make commuter rail happen.

"There doesn't appear to be any show stoppers," said Sid Covington, vice chairman of the rail district board. "I haven't seen anything to indicate that this isn't the right thing to do."

Officials also need to conduct an environmental assessment, and get Union Pacific to move its through freight off tracks near Interstate 35 to free them up for commuter rail service, both of which could take another two years, according to the study.

Ramping up initial service would cost an estimated $394 million for construction and $28 million a year to operate and maintain, the study says. Up to 5 million people a year could be riding by 2030.

Full service would cost about 50 percent more — $608 million for construction — but is projected to attract up to 8 million passengers a year.

Those costs don't include building new railroad tracks around San Antonio and Austin, which could run about $1.8 billion. However, rerouting freight trains would have other benefits, such as getting toxic cargo out of downtown areas.

As a comparison, the study says that adding two lanes to I-35 from San Antonio to Georgetown would cost more than $2 billion.

Meanwhile, the Central Texas portion of I-35 has the worst congestion, most traffic fatalities and worst highway-related pollution than any other section of the freeway from Mexico to Canada, the study states.

-----------------------------------------------------

Personally, I love the idea. There are meetings to discuss this soon, but I lost the email with the dates.

JoeChalupa

03-04-2005, 08:23 AM

I don't go to Austin much and it seems like a lot of money to save a few minutes of travel time. But I'm sure it would help traffic congestion.

Clandestino

03-04-2005, 09:12 AM

yeah, price seems high for this short commute...

Johnny_Blaze_47

03-04-2005, 10:52 AM

Personally, I love the idea. There are meetings to discuss this soon, but I lost the email with the dates.

News Editor to the rescue!

-----

Rail District Community Meetings

March 3, 2005, 6:30 – 8:30 p.m.: Buda/Kyle, Hays High School, 4800 Jack C. Hays Trail, Buda

March 5, 2005, 10:00 a.m. – 12:00 noon: Austin, Burger Center, 3200 Jones Rd.

March 7, 2005, 6:30 – 8:30 p.m.: Georgetown, 9th Grade Campus, 2239 N. Austin Ave.

March 8, 2005, 6:30 – 8:30 p.m.: Round Rock, Stony Point 9th Grade Center, 1901 Sunrise Rd.

March 10, 2005, 6:30 – 8:30 p.m.: Austin, Town Lake Center, 721 Barton Springs Rd.

March 12, 2005, 10:00 a.m. – 12:00 noon: San Antonio, Brackenridge High School, 400 Eagleland Dr.

March 21, 2005, 6:30 – 8:30 p.m.: San Marcos, San Marcos Activity Center, 501 E. Hopkins

March 22, 2005, 6:30 – 8:30 p.m.: New Braunfels, New Braunfels High School, 2551 Loop 337 North

March 24, 2005, 6:30 – 8:30 p.m.: Live Oak, Live Oak Activity Center, 8101 Pat Booker Rd.

------

I also have the photo of the proposed rail line, but I can't access my webspace to post it.

Johnny_Blaze_47

03-04-2005, 10:54 AM

http://www.universitystar.com/current/article.php?aid=189

Meetings on commuter rail hope to ease I-35 traffic
Chris Boehm / News Reporter
University Star

The Austin-San Antonio Intermunicipal Commuter Rail District is hosting a series of meetings concerning a new passenger rail system from Georgetown to San Antonio, with the initial phase of the project to be completed by 2009.

Citing a dangerous and congested stretch of Interstate 35 known as “the corridor,” the organization will provide information and seek input from the public meetings, the first of which is scheduled for
6:30 p.m. March 3 at Hays High School in Buda. Eight other meetings are scheduled throughout March.

“At first it was a big problem — finding out who was going to do this,” said District Vice Chairman Sid Covington, referring to the project. “In 2002, the commuter district became a reality, and now one of the biggest things is funding.”

Potential stops for the rail system include Austin, San Antonio, New Braunfels, Round Rock and Georgetown, with further plans for relocating stretches of Union Pacific railroad. A one-way fare from downtown San Antonio to downtown Austin will cost $12, according to a WOAI San Antonio article.

In 1999, a Federal Highway Administration study found this stretch of I-35 to have the highest fatality rate, pollution level and the most congestion anywhere along the 1,700 miles of the highway that stretch from Mexico to Canada.

Greater Austin-San Antonio Corridor Council President Ross Milloy has used this in his argument for progressive efforts in the area. He supports the rail project and considers it vital to both thinning traffic and improving the area’s economy.

“A fully implemented system would pull 35 percent of cars off the highway,” Milloy said. “Of course this is important, but more so is the fact that a rail system would boost conglomerate effects. More businesses would visit the area if they felt it was convenient to service in Round Rock and San Marcos, due to the rail system.”

On its Web site, the Austin-San Antonio Intermunicipal Commuter Rail District states that over the next 20 years, population within the corridor is expected to double to five million people, the current size of Dallas-Fort Worth. A commuter rail has the potential to add the equivalent of two more lanes of traffic on I-35, with each car holding roughly 160 people.

“It’s going to be a very classic commuter rail — bigger than a light rail,” Covington said. “There will be conductor cars on either end of the tram, so it will be able to travel in either direction on one track.”

Covington sees the rail as a potential benefit for many people, including students, tourists, outlet-mall shoppers and those with doctor’s appointments. With people freed from driving, the passengers can then exert their energies elsewhere.

“You’ll be able to do something like read or write or watch television,” Covington said. “Much more peaceful and relaxing than white-knuckling it down the interstate.”

Texas State students who commute to and from school would no longer have to worry about slowdown from highway accidents or finding a place to park once on campus.

“It’s a good idea,” said Leticia Acosta, criminal justice junior. “It should help out a lot with traffic problems, but I don’t know if people will want to give up having their cars with them in case they have to go somewhere.”

Environmental resources sophomore Jason Ford feels a rail system would be a welcome accommodation yet is unsure how much use a rail system would garner.

“The question is whether a lot of people will use it,” Ford said, who travels to Austin to work at a photo lab. “I think they will; you’ll be saving a lot on gas and time. It should be more convenient.”

The district plans on having the rail cars travel at a speed and time comparative to taking your own automobiles and has set its goal at slightly under 90 minutes from downtown Austin to downtown San Antonio.

“The cars we’ll be using, due to the freight, will be limited to 79 miles per hour, but in some towns like San Marcos, corporate speed zones might bring it down to about 35 miles per hour,” Covington said.

Johnny_Blaze_47

03-04-2005, 10:55 AM

http://www.universitystar.com/current/article.php?aid=237

The Main Point
Commuter rail project deserves student support
University Star Editorial Staff

If the Austin-San Antonio Intermunicipal Commuter Rail District succeeds in building a commuter rail to service the Interstate 35 corridor, a proposed stop in San Marcos would be a huge boon to Texas State commuter students.

With more than 51 percent of Texas State students living out of town, a commuter rail could allow many of those students the option to leave their cars at home.

According to a 2003 study by the Texas Transportation Institute, part of Texas A&M University, the traffic problems are only getting worse. The study said the average urban commuter is stuck in traffic 46 hours a year — imagine how those who drive 30 minutes to school every day feel. The rail district’s Web site states over the next 20 years, population within the corridor is expected to double to five million people, the current size of Dallas-Fort Worth. With the addition of that many possible commuters, San Marcos will undoubtedly become a site for many more traffic jams.

A commuter rail using the existing Union Pacific tracks could add the equivalent of two extra lanes to I-35 and have the potential to remove up to 35 percent of cars off the highway. This would be a tremendous step to improving the condition of Texas’ sadly underdeveloped public transportation system. Environmentalists and aggravated motorists alike desire improved public transportation; when public transportation is added to areas without any, people will use it.

If the proposed price of $12 for a one-way ticket from Austin to San Antonio is approved, the economic advantage to students would be tremendous. If a commuter from Austin or San Antonio drives approximately 60 miles round trip to and from San Marcos five times per week, at 30 miles per gallon with a 12 gallon tank, he would consume a gallon of gas per week. At the current market prices for gasoline, that cost is too high for the average college student to pay. A monthly rail pass for the TRI-RAIL in South Florida costs $80; if the cost for a pass for the proposed system were the same, a student would be spending about $4 per round trip.

If there is to be a stop in San Marcos, Texas State must be willing to provide bus service to the commuter rail. Texas State students would need the support of the university to be able to justify having the stop. It would also eliminate the need for the Texas State bus service to and from Austin, which costs $40 for 10 rides, not round trip.

According to the rail district’s Web site, U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith, R-San Antonio, has helped the district to apply for and receive $5.7 million in federal funding. Texans would not have to pay for the rail system from their tax coffers, but would only have to pay for the cost of the ride.

All Texas State students should go to the community meetings being held by the rail district and provide input on the proposed rail project. The meetings are being held at 6:30 p.m. on March 3 at Hays High School in Buda, 2 p.m. at the Burger Center on March 5 and at 6:30 p.m. on March 10 at the Town Lake Center in Austin. Students should also contact their state representatives and ask them to support legislation that would allow the rail district to be completed. For more information on the commuter rail, visit the rail district’s Web site at www.asarail.org.

Johnny_Blaze_47

03-04-2005, 10:56 AM

http://www.asarail.org/images/map-service-area.gif

Useruser666

03-04-2005, 10:59 AM

Johnny_Blaze_47

03-04-2005, 11:02 AM

I think a local transportation system is more important than one between SA and Austin. I think those that work in SA should live in SA, and those who work in Austin, should live in Austin. Manny, don't you think it would more enviromentally friendly to simply live closer to where you work than to build an expensive transportation system? I also don't understand who this would really help. I think the people getting the most benefit from this would be the people who want to earn Austin tech job money, but live in SA's cost of living. I think that it would be unfair to burden the tax payers with something that benefits only a small number of people.

According to the rail district’s Web site, U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith, R-San Antonio, has helped the district to apply for and receive $5.7 million in federal funding. Texans would not have to pay for the rail system from their tax coffers, but would only have to pay for the cost of the ride.

With more than 51 percent of Texas State students living out of town, a commuter rail could allow many of those students the option to leave their cars at home.

Believe me, Chris. We hashed this stuff out the night we wrote that Staff Ed. We have people who are from Austin and San Antonio on our Editorial Board.

What was nice to find out is that Union Pacific will probably allow the commuter rail to use their existing tracks along I-35 and (especially important to San Marcos and Texas State), the city is attempting to have UP and all train service out of the city instead of cutting the northern half into thirds.

Also, according to the university's 2006-15 Master Plan, a number of on-campus student parking will be eliminated, so the commuter levels will rise, not decline.

If Top Ten reform passes, students will no longer be admitted to the universities of their choice (IE: UT-Austin, A&M) exclusively, but they would be admitted to the system.

Austin students might have to go to UTSA and A&M students might have to go to A&M-SA. Same goes for those in the Texas State system (which has schools in San Marcos and Uvalde). What that also means is the enrollment at Texas State might increase more that expected if students choose to leave the UT system and go down the road.

Useruser666

03-04-2005, 11:09 AM

Those costs don't include building new railroad tracks around San Antonio and Austin, which could run about $1.8 billion. However, rerouting freight trains would have other benefits, such as getting toxic cargo out of downtown areas.

1.8 billion?!!! Where is that money going to come from? Is the $608 million in addition to the $394 million?

As a comparison, the study says that adding two lanes to I-35 from San Antonio to Georgetown would cost more than $2 billion.

Meanwhile, the Central Texas portion of I-35 has the worst congestion, most traffic fatalities and worst highway-related pollution than any other section of the freeway from Mexico to Canada, the study states.

I think the problem with the corrider is not that it's hugely over crowded or dangerous as a interstate, but that it's NOT FINISHED! The area around New Braunfels is terrible because of all of the contruction there. Having 4 lanes converge down to 2 twisting and turning lanes is not safe and is sure to cause congestion. They need to finish that section or atleast compare apples to apples.

I also do not see how the large number of big rigs on 35 will decrease with the addition of light rail. And for those that don't know, trucks make up an ever growing percentage of traffic on 35.

Johnny_Blaze_47

03-04-2005, 11:12 AM

I think the problem with the corrider is not that it's hugely over crowded or dangerous as a interstate, but that it's NOT FINISHED! The area around New Braunfels is terrible because of all of the contruction there. Having 4 lanes converge down to 2 twisting and turning lanes is not safe and is sure to cause congestion. They need to finish that section or atleast compare apples to apples.

I also do not see how the large number of big rigs on 35 will decrease with the addition of light rail. And for those that don't know, trucks make up an ever growing percentage of traffic on 35.

Can't argue there. That NB area is a bitch to drive through, even on Sunday afternoons when I usually hit it.

San Marcos is not so bad, but once you hit the Buda/Kyle area to Austin, it starts up again.

Clandestino

03-04-2005, 11:13 AM

Useruser666

03-04-2005, 11:13 AM

Believe me, Chris. We hashed this stuff out the night we wrote that Staff Ed. We have people who are from Austin and San Antonio on our Editorial Board.

What was nice to find out is that Union Pacific will probably allow the commuter rail to use their existing tracks along I-35 and (especially important to San Marcos and Texas State), the city is attempting to have UP and all train service out of the city instead of cutting the northern half into thirds.

Also, according to the university's 2006-15 Master Plan, a number of on-campus student parking will be eliminated, so the commuter levels will rise, not decline.

If Top Ten reform passes, students will no longer be admitted to the universities of their choice (IE: UT-Austin, A&M) exclusively, but they would be admitted to the system.

Austin students might have to go to UTSA and A&M students might have to go to A&M-SA. Same goes for those in the Texas State system (which has schools in San Marcos and Uvalde). What that also means is the enrollment at Texas State might increase more that expected if students choose to leave the UT system and go down the road.

But who will pay for the construction of the rail and it's operating cost? $5.7 million is for what?

and $28 million a year to operate and maintain, the study says.

$28 million a year will come from ticket sales alone?

Clandestino

03-04-2005, 11:14 AM

i still say, 24 round trip is waaaaay too expensive...

Useruser666

03-04-2005, 11:16 AM

And damn your editing Blaze!!! Damn it to hell!!! :lol

Johnny_Blaze_47

03-04-2005, 11:17 AM

And damn your editing Blaze!!! Damn it to hell!!! :lol

Actually, I was just adding. :lol

Johnny_Blaze_47

03-04-2005, 11:20 AM

i still say, 24 round trip is waaaaay too expensive...

It's probably not going to average out to $12/trip for those that buy passes or such.

Also, for shorter distances (including those from SA-SM and Austin-SM), it would likely be cheaper.

That's what these meetings are for. We're going to have reporters at the SM and NB meeting (I'll try and make the Live Oak meeting since we work on the paper Monday-Wednesday nights).

I'll be sure to bring up your points, Chris.

MannyIsGod

03-04-2005, 11:21 AM

1.8 billion?!!! Where is that money going to come from? Is the $608 million in addition to the $394 million?

Did you bother to read this?

As a comparison, the study says that adding two lanes to I-35 from San Antonio to Georgetown would cost more than $2 billion.

The 1.8 Billion is SAVING you 200 million.

So, don't argue cost, it's a losing arguement.

You guys do realize that they aren't just thinking about Today right? You guys realize that the I35 corridor between Austin and San Antonio and including the 2 is growing incredibly fast right?

Ah, I'm not going to argue it. Shit, if you don't even bother to read the articles posted, whats the point in discussing them?

Johnny_Blaze_47

03-04-2005, 11:22 AM

also, once all the people begin moving to sa our cost of living would rise...not to mention we'd have all those austin hippies!

:lol

Once our site gets updated (I think our Web admin was out sick these last few days), I'll post a column from one of our columnists about Austin and why they should secede from Texas.

Useruser666

03-04-2005, 11:23 AM

Johnny_Blaze_47

03-04-2005, 11:24 AM

I also do not see how the large number of big rigs on 35 will decrease with the addition of light rail. And for those that don't know, trucks make up an ever growing percentage of traffic on 35.

Wouldn't this be an argument FOR the light rail?

Also, there are expanded proposals for (possibly) a toll road leading from SA to Austin (IIRC, it'd be between I-35 and I-10).

MannyIsGod

03-04-2005, 11:26 AM

Dude, we don't need a subway system. What the hell?

Smaller scale transportation system?

What the hell?

You know Via isin the process of growing right?

Chris, are you being serious?

Clandestino

03-04-2005, 11:26 AM

Clandestino

03-04-2005, 11:27 AM

MannyIsGod

03-04-2005, 11:28 AM

There is never going to be a lower amount of truck traffic on 35. It's a HUGE corridor for shipping out of Lardeo. When I worked as a dispatcher, almost everything I had came out of Mexico up 35 to Michigan loaded with car parts.

MannyIsGod

03-04-2005, 11:29 AM

Tunnel Vision

Clandestino

03-04-2005, 11:30 AM

the reason europe and our larger cites in the u.s. have public transportation systems built up is because they have no parking... it is cheaper for people to use public transportation..plus the traffic is too bad to warrant driving in it.. not to mentionin europe it costs between 3.50-4.50 for a gallon of gas.. none of thse conditions really affect our area...

also, a person would still have to walk or drive to get to the light rail center...

Clandestino

03-04-2005, 11:31 AM

MannyIsGod

03-04-2005, 11:31 AM

BTW, students rarely pay anything near full fare for mass transit. Just a bit of info.

Cladestion, for all the traveling you've done, haven't you ever been to DC? Baltimore to DC train sound familliar? I'd bring up NY, but that city has trains coming out of the wazoo.

But, whatever, the rail is obviously a bad idea. I guess my only consolation comes from the fact that I know you 2 won't be at any of the meetings :spin

MannyIsGod

03-04-2005, 11:32 AM

exactly! that is why extra highway lanes are needed!

Any research to back this up?

Hurry, cause I'm holding my breath!

Clandestino

03-04-2005, 11:33 AM

Johnny_Blaze_47

03-04-2005, 11:33 AM

I'm of the opinion that if you want to go to college at a paticular place, you move there. I think a subway system or some other smaller scale tansportation system to succeed VIA or cover other local needs is more important than a rail system between Austin and SA. I would be pro local transportation.

Nice opinion, but think of it this way.

1. I work in San Antonio on the weekends (I live in San Marcos now). There is no way I could find a job that pays what I make with the hours I work in San Marcos. This job and pay allow me to work the amount of hours I do at The University Star for the smaller amount of pay I get there. I'll also admit, I could cut my costs if I wanted to by a huge margin, but believe me, I love not having to deal with a roommate - especially if I'd come home at 1-2 a.m. like I do from the nights we work on the paper.

2. One of my reporters lives in San Antonio (near East Central) and commutes. She simply can't afford to live on her own in San Marcos and UTSA is not an option as their journalism department is, well, let's be frank, it's essentially non-existant. She's near the end of her degree, so living on campus isn't feasible because the only dorms she could get into would be the most expensive ones (ones that cost more that what I pay to live on my own in an apartment less than five minutes from campus).

3. One of my closest friends (who graduated a few months back) lived in SM. In her last semester, she received an internship with a San Antonio advertising agency doing the EXACT work she wanted to do within an agency like that. She drove to SA two/three times a week to work at this firm UNPAID. Three weeks prior to her graduation, she was offered a high-paying position within this firm doing the EXACT work she wanted to do right after graduation. She now lives in San Antonio and couldn't be happier.

4. Think about this. Texas State has approximately 28,000 students. Do you think the city of San Marcos can support that kind of addition to its job market? Nope.

Clandestino

03-04-2005, 11:35 AM

Any research to back this up?

Hurry, cause I'm holding my breath!

you just said, "There is never going to be a lower amount of truck traffic on 35. It's a HUGE corridor for shipping out of Lardeo. When I worked as a dispatcher, almost everything I had came out of Mexico up 35 to Michigan loaded with car parts."

since you think there is NEVER going to be a lower amount of traffic that would be there could only be more... because you know for sure it isn't going to be less with the way our cities are growing.. therefore, more roads/lanes will be needed...

MannyIsGod

03-04-2005, 11:37 AM

You're telling me that the reason that most people take the rail from Baltimore into DC, or vice versa is because of parking?

Well, I'm telling youthat you're on crack. It's because of traffic.

Tell you what Why don't you and Chris post a clear view on why you oppose the rail. Feel free to post any information which backs up your view, then I'll do the same in a rebuttal. Yes?

MannyIsGod

03-04-2005, 11:38 AM

Or, you could remove commuter traffic. See, Tunnel Vision.

MannyIsGod

03-04-2005, 11:38 AM

What are you going to do man? Stack highways on top of each other untill they reach the moon? There's only so much expansion you can do.

Johnny_Blaze_47

03-04-2005, 11:39 AM

no shit...what is up with these people? they think college kids have all that time and money to waste commuting for a couple classes? they need jobs too...this way they won't have time for a job bc they'd be commuting the whole time

I'm confused at this statement.

Many students are now working two/three jobs simply to pay their tuition, not just books, fees, room and transportation.

One of my three jobs pays just under what I need to make my apartment rent, the others pays the remainder of my bills, the other is an unpaid internship that I'm doing for the second year (gets up to speed again later this month).

Two of those jobs are working in journalism. Working at a newspaper (on campus) and working for an internet news/sports site (the work is on the west side of San Antonio).

And I'M one of the lucky ones who has help from my parents.

Clandestino

03-04-2005, 11:39 AM

MannyIsGod

03-04-2005, 11:39 AM

You guys are entitled to whatever opinions you want to hold, but the research supports the creation of a commuter rail. Joe's read a lot into it, take his word not mine.

MannyIsGod

03-04-2005, 11:40 AM

Clan, I'm talking INTERCITY (Baltimore - DC being my main example) communting, not INTRACITY.

Johnny_Blaze_47

03-04-2005, 11:43 AM

Research also states that the growth sector is essentially going to lead to the Austin-San Antonio metroplex within 40-50 years.

The only time I've been the DFW metroplex was a time I was too young to remember, so I don't know if that is truly going to take place here, but it's a consideration.

Clandestino

03-04-2005, 11:43 AM

You guys are entitled to whatever opinions you want to hold, but the research supports the creation of a commuter rail. Joe's read a lot into it, take his word not mine.

i've lived in areas with nice pub transportation systems.. our area is built nothing like it.. most of the cities had well defined business areas... everything was built close together... it was easy to use.. i used pub transportation all the time..

in sa, it would be a hassle.. first you'd either have to drive to the train station, or take slow ass via...once you got there you would have to do the same.. or are they going to build like a city train system too?

Useruser666

03-04-2005, 11:45 AM

Did you bother to read this?

As a comparison, the study says that adding two lanes to I-35 from San Antonio to Georgetown would cost more than $2 billion.

The 1.8 Billion is SAVING you 200 million.

So, don't argue cost, it's a losing arguement.

You guys do realize that they aren't just thinking about Today right? You guys realize that the I35 corridor between Austin and San Antonio and including the 2 is growing incredibly fast right?

Ah, I'm not going to argue it. Shit, if you don't even bother to read the articles posted, whats the point in discussing them?

Manny, shut the fuck up!!! I read the fucking articles, so don't come back with, "You are a fucking moron so I don't care what you think opinion!" Why don't you look at how Blaze responded? You have a very poor delivery in speaking and discussing issues with people because you come off as insulting and demeaning. Mabye you just don't care. That is perfectly reasonable, but if you really want to have your issues heard by everyone, you should try and improve on your responses' tones.

If you will see, I wasn't proposing adding two more lanes to 35. I made it a point that 35 is under heavy construction at the areas that are cited as being crowded, dangerous, and heavy with pollution are not complete yet. I think it is wrong to compare the rail system with a highway that is not complete. The two lane addtion idea came entirely from the article. Even so, the $1.8 billion is not the cost of the rail system itself. The 1.8 billion is for the rerouting of rail traffic around SA and the addition of new rails to the area. Now, I don't know how much of that is already approved or necesary, so it's a difficult number to use in this argument.

But if I were to mention it, I would have to add $1.8 billion to the $394 million to get more accurate cost. That is $2.19 billion. They article also mentioned that there was an additional cost to bring the rail system to full use of $608 million. Now, I'm not sure if that includes the $394 milion or not. So the cost of the rail system is now between $2.19 and $2.4 billion dollars with an anual expense of $28 million.

I would like to know what the anual expense is for maintaining the current highway system in place, and how much burden would be relieved from it with the building of the light rail. Also, what is the capacity of the current highway system once complete? Those are some big variables that need to be defined.

Now, if the rail system could generate revenue, or prove to offer some sort of discernible savings in time and money, then I would certainly re-evaluate my stance. But I can not side for what is being proposed now.

MannyIsGod

03-04-2005, 11:46 AM

Manny, shut the fuck up!!!

You have a very poor delivery in speaking and discussing issues with people because you come off as insulting and demeaning.

:lmao

Johnny_Blaze_47

03-04-2005, 11:47 AM

I just pulled out a t-shirt because I have to go to Austin in a few minutes and this is what the back of it says.

Normal Star
1911-1923

The College Star
1923-1969

The University Star
1969-Present

San Marcos/Texas State aren't going anywhere. It's going to continue to grow. Estimates in the Campus Master Plan put enrollment in 2016 at somewhere between 32-35,000. We're at 28,000 now.

MannyIsGod

03-04-2005, 11:49 AM

Chris, don't you think they take that all into account when they conduct these studies?

And whether or not you "propose" it or not, something will have to be done, if not both

Btw, I never called you a moron bub, you did that on your own.

Johnny_Blaze_47

03-04-2005, 11:51 AM

Manny, shut the fuck up!!! I read the fucking articles, so don't come back with, "You are a fucking moron so I don't care what you think opinion!" Why don't you look at how Blaze responded? You have a very poor delivery in speaking and discussing issues with people because you come off as insulting and demeaning. Mabye you just don't care. That is perfectly reasonable, but if you really want to have your issues heard by everyone, you should try and improve on your responses' tones.

If you will see, I wasn't proposing adding two more lanes to 35. I made it a point that 35 is under heavy construction at the areas that are cited as being crowded, dangerous, and heavy with pollution are not complete yet. I think it is wrong to compare the rail system with a highway that is not complete. The two lane addtion idea came entirely from the article. Even so, the $1.8 billion is not the cost of the rail system itself. The 1.8 billion is for the rerouting of rail traffic around SA and the addition of new rails to the area. Now, I don't know how much of that is already approved or necesary, so it's a difficult number to use in this argument.

But if I were to mention it, I would have to add $1.8 billion to the $394 million to get more accurate cost. That is $2.19 billion. They article also mentioned that there was an additional cost to bring the rail system to full use of $608 million. Now, I'm not sure if that includes the $394 milion or not. So the cost of the rail system is now between $2.19 and $2.4 billion dollars with an anual expense of $28 million.

I would like to know what the anual expense is for maintaining the current highway system in place, and how much burden would be relieved from it with the building of the light rail. Also, what is the capacity of the current highway system once complete? Those are some big variables that need to be defined.

Now, if the rail system could generate revenue, or prove to offer some sort of discernible savings in time and money, then I would certainly re-evaluate my stance. But I can not side for what is being proposed now.

Chris, this semester, I've made a big push for also covering issues that don't normally affect students of today (commuter rail, Campus Master Plan, etc.).

Tell you what, if we can all find out the issues that need to be checked (cost comparisons, current construction, future plans on the SA-Austin metro areas, etc.), I'm going to assign a series on the future effects of all these issues to Texas State and the surrounding communities to be published before the end of the semester.

I'll keep everybody posted on the work.

Scratch that. I'm going to assign myself the story(ies).

Useruser666

03-04-2005, 11:53 AM

:lmao

You attacked my opinions on this matter. I felt it necessary to come back with at least the same tone and language as you repeatedly do. I posted several of my opinions on the matter berfore you attacked me unjustly.

MannyIsGod

03-04-2005, 12:02 PM

Let's review:

The rail district board is scheduled today to review a draft of the study, which says linking the two cities by commuter rail makes sense. The draft updates a 1999 study that said the same thing. And since then, congestion on Interstate 35 has only gotten worse.

Ramping up initial service would cost an estimated $394 million for construction and $28 million a year to operate and maintain, the study says. Up to 5 million people a year could be riding by 2030.

Full service would cost about 50 percent more — $608 million for construction — but is projected to attract up to 8 million passengers a year.

Those costs don't include building new railroad tracks around San Antonio and Austin, which could run about $1.8 billion. However, rerouting freight trains would have other benefits, such as getting toxic cargo out of downtown areas.

It's an either or on the costs. And after all the derailments, building new tracks is something they want do do either way

And you ask for stuff that's already been given, That is why I question whether or not you read the articles.

“A fully implemented system would pull 35 percent of cars off the highway,” Milloy said. “Of course this is important, but more so is the fact that a rail system would boost conglomerate effects. More businesses would visit the area if they felt it was convenient to service in Round Rock and San Marcos, due to the rail system.”

If the proposed price of $12 for a one-way ticket from Austin to San Antonio is approved, the economic advantage to students would be tremendous. If a commuter from Austin or San Antonio drives approximately 60 miles round trip to and from San Marcos five times per week, at 30 miles per gallon with a 12 gallon tank, he would consume a gallon of gas per week. At the current market prices for gasoline, that cost is too high for the average college student to pay. A monthly rail pass for the TRI-RAIL in South Florida costs $80; if the cost for a pass for the proposed system were the same, a student would be spending about $4 per round trip.

You guys keep focusing on the 12 dollar ticket cost without taking a moment to realize that mass transit passes always cost much less, and anyone using it on a regular basis would have that.

if you drove a 12 gallon car off one tank a week, that's about 20 dollars to fill up on today's gas prices. 20 dollars a week times 4 weeks, is 80 dollars. And I drove a 12 gallon HIGH MILEAGE car around town filling up at least twice a week. So this would definetly be a way to save money.

MannyIsGod

03-04-2005, 12:05 PM

You attacked my opinions on this matter. I felt it necessary to come back with at least the same tone and language as you repeatedly do. I posted several of my opinions on the matter berfore you attacked me unjustly.

I stated that your opinions have little or no factual basis, and they don't. I'm sorry that offends you but I asked you for sources that back up your opinion. The one thing I said which you could construe as an attack was questioning whether you read the articles.

Clandestino

03-04-2005, 12:08 PM

A fully implemented system would pull 35 percent of cars off the highway,” Milloy said. “Of course this is important, but more so is the fact that a rail system would boost conglomerate effects. More businesses would visit the area if they felt it was convenient to service in Round Rock and San Marcos, due to the rail system.”

bullshit! no way in hell over 1/3 of drivers would be off the streets riding this train...

MannyIsGod

03-04-2005, 12:11 PM

bullshit! no way in hell over 1/3 of drivers would be off the streets riding this train...

:lmao, of course not, clandestino knows best! He's been to Europe!

The sad thing is I knew the general content of your post before opening this thread again.

Clandestino

03-04-2005, 12:12 PM

:lmao, of course not, clandestino knows best! He's been to Europe!

manny, you've never been out of west side so STFU!

but seriously... 1/3 of all drivers off the highway? very unrealistic...

Clandestino

03-04-2005, 12:14 PM

:lmao, of course not, clandestino knows best! He's been to Europe!

The sad thing is I knew the general content of your post before opening this thread again.

and i haven't just been to many places..i've lived there... got a feel for them... unlike you who just posts bullshit you've read in between jack off sessions...

MannyIsGod

03-04-2005, 12:28 PM

but seriously... 1/3 of all drivers off the highway? very unrealistic...

Must be general knowledge you gain when you enter European airspace.

Useruser666

03-04-2005, 12:43 PM

Dude, we don't need a subway system. What the hell?

Smaller scale transportation system?

What the hell?

You know Via isin the process of growing right?

Chris, are you being serious?

I was just anming examples. Better and more expanded local bus service might be a better choice. Carpool incentives is another option.

There is never going to be a lower amount of truck traffic on 35. It's a HUGE corridor for shipping out of Lardeo. When I worked as a dispatcher, almost everything I had came out of Mexico up 35 to Michigan loaded with car parts.

That is another area where light rail will have NO effect. As you just stated, truck traffic is a big concern. This will not be remedied by light rail. Maybe a better way transporting frieght should be examined as well. Trucks are usually slower moving traffic, cause terrible accidents when they do wreck, and pollute with the tons of shredded tires they leave along the sides of highways. There is also broken windshields, and a number of other factors that big rigs have on the road system and the other vehicles on it. Why hasn't there been any discussion about how frieght is handled?

Tunnel Vision

Train Tunnel Vision

BTW, students rarely pay anything near full fare for mass transit. Just a bit of info.

So that group would get the benefit of a taxpayer paid system of travel and also not have to pay the same rate as the others who shoulder part of the cost in a system? A system which was built because of that small group's needs?

Cladestion, for all the traveling you've done, haven't you ever been to DC? Baltimore to DC train sound familliar? I'd bring up NY, but that city has trains coming out of the wazoo.

NY and DC are a lot different than SA-Austin. SA-Austin consists of a much lower population density. DC has a wonderful subway system that is very efficient. I am not saying that would work here. I do believe we could use more local transportation options.

But, whatever, the rail is obviously a bad idea. I guess my only consolation comes from the fact that I know you 2 won't be at any of the meetings

You seem to have a holier than thou attitude about these things. I commend you for taking an active role in government, but I don't think that it makes my opinion on this matter any less important, or even less qualified than yours.

Tell you what Why don't you and Chris post a clear view on why you oppose the rail. Feel free to post any information which backs up your view, then I'll do the same in a rebuttal. Yes?

I have stated several times my view on why I oppose the rail, even before you made this comment. The information I posted in my opinions were taken from the articles you and Blaze posted. I felt they did back up my views, or were to general in their wording to stand on.

Or, you could remove commuter traffic. See, Tunnel Vision.

I'm for examining frieght traffic in the area first.

You guys are entitled to whatever opinions you want to hold, but the research supports the creation of a commuter rail. Joe's read a lot into it, take his word not mine.

The research does not totally support either case clearly. You can say it does, but that doesn't make it true. I would like to se more numbers first.

Chris, this semester, I've made a big push for also covering issues that don't normally affect students of today (commuter rail, Campus Master Plan, etc.).

Tell you what, if we can all find out the issues that need to be checked (cost comparisons, current construction, future plans on the SA-Austin metro areas, etc.), I'm going to assign a series on the future effects of all these issues to Texas State and the surrounding communities to be published before the end of the semester.

I'll keep everybody posted on the work.

Scratch that. I'm going to assign myself the story(ies).

Cool!

Chris, don't you think they take that all into account when they conduct these studies?

No, I don't! Do you believe everything you read? Who commisioned the studies? No conflicts of interest there? I'm not going NBADAn on you either.

And whether or not you "propose" it or not, something will have to be done, if not both

Of course it may not matter what I propose. But if I have a vote on the issue, then in a small way it does matter how I feel about the subject.

Btw, I never called you a moron bub, you did that on your own.

That is why I described it as, "because you come off as insulting and demeaning." The "moron" statement was just an example of how I see your comments as being intended.

Ramping up initial service would cost an estimated $394 million for construction and $28 million a year to operate and maintain, the study says. Up to 5 million people a year could be riding by 2030.

So what about the $608 million? Where will this money come from?

It's an either or on the costs. And after all the derailments, building new tracks is something they want do do either way

And you ask for stuff that's already been given, That is why I question whether or not you read the articles.

I don't ask for stuff that has already been given. I asked for some clarity of those numbers given. Who said that the $1.8 billion was for tracks that were already scheduled to be built? I didn't see that in the article. Maybe it is, but I'm sure part of it would have to got ot adapting the lines to allow for the new rail system. See article exerpt below...

Those costs don't include building new railroad tracks around San Antonio and Austin, which could run about $1.8 billion. However, rerouting freight trains would have other benefits, such as getting toxic cargo out of downtown areas.

It says the issue about toxic cargo would be a side benefit. It doesn't say that the $1.8 billion is for one, the other, or both. I want to know where the money is spent, and for what reasons.

You guys keep focusing on the 12 dollar ticket cost without taking a moment to realize that mass transit passes always cost much less, and anyone using it on a regular basis would have that.

if you drove a 12 gallon car off one tank a week, that's about 20 dollars to fill up on today's gas prices. 20 dollars a week times 4 weeks, is 80 dollars. And I drove a 12 gallon HIGH MILEAGE car around town filling up at least twice a week. So this would definetly be a way to save money.

I was not focusing on the ticket price. I just want to know if the thing can pay for itself. There is logic to your math, but I don't know that you can compare Florida's system to the one proposed here. Your comparrison on saving gas is flawed. You can not say that using the light rail would save you 100% of your gas money, unless you only drive to and from the same locations the light rail would cover. Even if the light rail would save you 75% of your gas money you would now be spending $100 dollars a month with light rail compared to $80 a month with the car. Where is the savings?

I stated that your opinions have little or no factual basis, and they don't. I'm sorry that offends you but I asked you for sources that back up your opinion. The one thing I said which you could construe as an attack was questioning whether you read the articles.

First off, that is why I usually state, IMO. Second, I did list several numbers for reference. They came from your own postings, you know, the ones I don't read.

“A fully implemented system would pull 35 percent of cars off the highway,” Milloy said. “Of course this is important, but more so is the fact that a rail system would boost conglomerate effects. More businesses would visit the area if they felt it was convenient to service in Round Rock and San Marcos, due to the rail system.”

So a new light rail system would pull 35% of CARS off the highway in the year by as early as 2009(partial service) or 2020(full service)?

So how is a 35% percent reduction going to help so far in the future if things are already so far behind? Look at this....

On its Web site, the Austin-San Antonio Intermunicipal Commuter Rail District states that over the next 20 years, population within the corridor is expected to double to five million people,

How will the rail system cope with this growth when it's only removing 35% of cars and not even touching the freight issue?

Check this out....

“At first it was a big problem — finding out who was going to do this,” said District Vice Chairman Sid Covington, referring to the project. “In 2002, the commuter district became a reality, and now one of the biggest things is funding.”

So, again I ask, who is going to pay for this? That is major concern for me.

Clandestino

03-04-2005, 02:06 PM

Must be general knowledge you gain when you enter European airspace.

reducing anything by 1/3 is a huge amount... and some limited area intercity train is not going to drastically reduce anything... that is what the people who stand to make money from this are saying.. they will tell you anything to get your money... trains in the u.s don't make money... the only thing keeping amtrak afloat is huge government subsidies..

Federal subsidies account for $1.2 billion of Amtrak's overall budget of $3 billion this fiscal year. Without it, the company -- already saddled with $3.8 billion in debt -- would be forced into bankruptcy, leaving courts to decide how to restructure it.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/02/25/BUGJUBGM861.DTL&type=business

imagine how much money the sa-austin trail would lose yearly..especially being a start-up..amtrak is old and still sucks... despite all the people in ny, dc, maryland and california riding..

MannyIsGod

03-04-2005, 04:13 PM

Clandestino, you've brought nothing to disregard those amounts other than your opinion. NOTHING.

You think it's a huge amount, therefore it must not be a realistic number.

MannyIsGod

03-04-2005, 04:28 PM

I was just anming examples. Better and more expanded local bus service might be a better choice. Carpool incentives is another option.

This is not meant for local communting. You are countering a intercity issue with local solutions.

As a sidenote, bus service would be increased to the main and outer stations in order to maximize rail use.

That is another area where light rail will have NO effect. As you just stated, truck traffic is a big concern. This will not be remedied by light rail. Maybe a better way transporting frieght should be examined as well. Trucks are usually slower moving traffic, cause terrible accidents when they do wreck, and pollute with the tons of shredded tires they leave along the sides of highways. There is also broken windshields, and a number of other factors that big rigs have on the road system and the other vehicles on it. Why hasn't there been any discussion about how frieght is handled?

Ok, most of that is anecdotal opinions. You fix what you can. There really isn't an alternative to truck traffic. Truck traffic is going to use 35 because it's the most efficent way of moving freight.

That doesn't mean you don't find solutions on lowering the amount of other traffic.

So that group would get the benefit of a taxpayer paid system of travel and also not have to pay the same rate as the others who shoulder part of the cost in a system? A system which was built because of that small group's needs?

Look, quite honestly, there isn't even a final cost system in place. Those are estimates of what it could cost, very preliminary.

However, all mass transit systems offer discounts to varius groups. I was makinga point because Clan was saying that it woudln't be feasible for a student to use this system to commute to UT Austin or Texas State.

Yes, it would.

NY and DC are a lot different than SA-Austin. SA-Austin consists of a much lower population density. DC has a wonderful subway system that is very efficient. I am not saying that would work here. I do believe we could use more local transportation options.

We're not discussing transportation within the San Antonio or Austin limits, but between them. This is much like people from Long Island commuting to NYC or people from Baltimore commuting to DC.

You seem to have a holier than thou attitude about these things. I commend you for taking an active role in government, but I don't think that it makes my opinion on this matter any less important, or even less qualified than yours.

Less qualified? No. Less important? Yes. And you may not agree with me, but representatives don't listen to constituants who don't speak up or make themselves heard in some manner.

I'm not taking a holier than thou attitude. I'm pointing out that the old addage about the squeaky wheel getting the grease holds very true.

The research does not totally support either case clearly.

That's funny, have you seen the reasearch, or have you seen a few short articles?

You're in the engineering dept at UTSA, you might want to look up some of your fellow students who are studying railways, especially those who have access to the information and see what they think. I can give you a few names on who to contact.

I don't ask for stuff that has already been given. I asked for some clarity of those numbers given. Who said that the $1.8 billion was for tracks that were already scheduled to be built? I didn't see that in the article. Maybe it is, but I'm sure part of it would have to got ot adapting the lines to allow for the new rail system. See article exerpt below...

You have noticed all the news with the local government on Union Pacific right? Nothing is imminent but it's headed in one direction. Something about derailments and chlorine gas and the like thats starting to piss people off.

It says the issue about toxic cargo would be a side benefit. It doesn't say that the $1.8 billion is for one, the other, or both. I want to know where the money is spent, and for what reasons.

A side benefit that happens to be a major issue at the time.

So a new light rail system would pull 35% of CARS off the highway in the year by as early as 2009(partial service) or 2020(full service)?

So how is a 35% percent reduction going to help so far in the future if things are already so far behind? Look at this....

How will the rail system cope with this growth when it's only removing 35% of cars and not even touching the freight issue?

Check this out....

I could be wrong on this, because I'm just assuming, but their using projected numbers. In other words, 35% difference at the time of implamentation.

So, again I ask, who is going to pay for this? That is major concern for me.

That remains to be seen.

MannyIsGod

03-04-2005, 04:46 PM

I'm reading the report right now, I'll post some stuff from it in a bit.

MannyIsGod

03-04-2005, 05:11 PM

ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/asr/finalrpt.pdf
This is the 99 feasability report. The new one is not online because it's not completed yet.

Chris, TexDot is the one doing the report.

Although major efforts are under
way to continue to improve and expand the
highway network, there is a clear consensus
that additional alternatives must be considered
as a supplement to these proposed highway
improvements. Therefore, this Austin-San
Antonio Commuter Rail Study was designed to
consider means for increasing the Corridor’s
transportation capacity using available railroad
rights-of-way.

So, as you can see, the highway improvements are going to be done, but it's not going to be enough on their own. The region is growing too fast.

A full range of alternative transportation
improvements were included in the analysis.
These alternatives included the following:
• No Build Alternative;
• Travel Demand Management/ Transportation
System Management Alternative;
• High Occupancy Toll/High Occupancy
Vehicle Alternative;
• Busway along existing railroad right-of-way
Alternative;
• New Rail within existing rail right-of-way
Alternative;
• Shared Track with UP freight service
Alternative;
• Shared Track with UP through-freight traffic
rerouted Alternative.

The other items considered along with a rail line. Notice the HOV lanes and Toll alternatives as well.

As for how it was going to be paid for :

Financing:
Construction: Federal - 50%
Regional - 50% (0.11¢ tax)
Operations & Maintenance:
Passenger fares - 55%
Federal - 10%
Regional - 35% (0.015¢ tax)

thats an 11 hundredths of a cent sales tax, and a 15 thousandths foa cent sales tax. The rest is self sufficent or federal money that has already been allocated.

So, in other words for every one hundred dollars you spend, you'd get taxed 12.5 cents. Actually, it's less than that because the taxes wouldn't be at the same time.

More info on that:

The Commuter Rail Feasibility Report
concluded that the operation of a commuter rail
system within this corridor is feasible, both from
a technical and financial perspective. Based on
the new-track option, the overall construction
costs would be about $475 million in 1998
dollars. It could be financed with 50% federal
TEA-21 (Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century) funds (or funds from a subsequent
transportation act) supplemented with a regional
sales tax of about 0.11 cents (just over one tenth
of a cent) for construction and 0.015 cents (less
than two hundredths of a cent) for operations
after the construction bonds are paid off. Should
the position of the Union Pacific Railroad (UP)
change and permit sharing of tracks between UP
freight service and commuter rail passenger
service, a lower cost alternative may be possible.

Here's one that you highway lovers should read:

Highway Mobility Needs
Numerous improvements to increase northsouth
highway capacity within the corridor are
being constructed or are programmed for
implementation. A partial list of those
projects is included below.2 As a part of an
ongoing study of the IH 35 highway from
Mexico to Canada, it has been suggested that
as many as 18 lanes of highway might be
needed through the Austin area to handle the
projected growth. Since it is unlikely that 18
lanes will ever be built, there is the need to
explore other transportation alternatives in
addition to highway options.

18 freaking lanes?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?

I ask once again, where do you plan on putting these lanes?

The rest of the report is an explanation and elbaboration. Pretty damn boring really.

xrayzebra

03-04-2005, 05:28 PM

Manny, think about something, how many passengers can a train hold?
how many cars are going to be rented on either end of the line to get
you to your final destination? How much does a "lite" rain system cost?
How many lanes could be built to handle traffic in both directions and move
how many people. And don't include all the crap about pollution. Someone
has to provide the energy to move the "lite" rail.

3rdCoast

03-04-2005, 05:31 PM

ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/asr/finalrpt.pdf
This is the 99 feasability report. The new one is not online because it's not completed yet.

Chris, TexDot is the one doing the report.

So, as you can see, the highway improvements are going to be done, but it's not going to be enough on their own. The region is growing too fast.

The other items considered along with a rail line. Notice the HOV lanes and Toll alternatives as well.

As for how it was going to be paid for :

thats an 11 hundredths of a cent sales tax, and a 15 thousandths foa cent sales tax. The rest is self sufficent or federal money that has already been allocated.

So, in other words for every one hundred dollars you spend, you'd get taxed 12.5 cents. Actually, it's less than that because the taxes wouldn't be at the same time.

More info on that:

Here's one that you highway lovers should read:

18 freaking lanes?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?

I ask once again, where do you plan on putting these lanes?

The rest of the report is an explanation and elbaboration. Pretty damn boring really.
u dont build out son , u build up. high up in the sky u can build as many lanes as u want 100 ft above the road, it dont always gotta be right on the ground. think kid, think.

MannyIsGod

03-04-2005, 05:54 PM

Useruser666

03-04-2005, 06:12 PM

This is not meant for local communting. You are countering a intercity issue with local solutions.

No, I am saying I don't want anything more than a local system to be looked at.

As a sidenote, bus service would be increased to the main and outer stations in order to maximize rail use.

Ok, so we need more buses to use the rail system? Is that included in the estimated costs? How does that effect pollution?

Ok, most of that is anecdotal opinions. You fix what you can. There really isn't an alternative to truck traffic. Truck traffic is going to use 35 because it's the most efficent way of moving freight.

There are alternatives to truck traffic. But why should the highways be used for truck traffic alone? What is being done to reduce truck traffic on our highways? I rather more freight railways be built between to ease truck traffic.

That doesn't mean you don't find solutions on lowering the amount of other traffic.

Look, quite honestly, there isn't even a final cost system in place. Those are estimates of what it could cost, very preliminary.

You kind of touted your numbers and then you come back saying they are just estimates? That's fine, but I don't want to be hit over the head with numbers that can't hold up later on.

However, all mass transit systems offer discounts to varius groups. I was makinga point because Clan was saying that it woudln't be feasible for a student to use this system to commute to UT Austin or Texas State.

Yes, it would.

You mean, maybe it would. As I demonstrated with your own math, it may cost more to use a light rail system for such commuting. Since you have now stated the numbers are just estimates, I think it's only fair to say that it's just and educated guess that it will save commuters/college students money.

We're not discussing transportation within the San Antonio or Austin limits, but between them. This is much like people from Long Island commuting to NYC or people from Baltimore commuting to DC.

I mentioned the DC subway as an example, because it is a very localized system of transportation. I think it works very well on that local level. I think that's something that SA could use, albiet for the physical difference that SA has a very low population density.

Less qualified? No. Less important? Yes. And you may not agree with me, but representatives don't listen to constituants who don't speak up or make themselves heard in some manner.

I'm not taking a holier than thou attitude. I'm pointing out that the old addage about the squeaky wheel getting the grease holds very true.

I think you meant that you were more qualified and our opinions were equally important. I'm not talking to representatives. I'm discussing with the people here on this forum the article you posted. I'm not trying to change your mind, I'm simply stating my opinions on the matter. Is that not why you posted the article?

That's funny, have you seen the reasearch, or have you seen a few short articles?

You're in the engineering dept at UTSA, you might want to look up some of your fellow students who are studying railways, especially those who have access to the information and see what they think. I can give you a few names on who to contact.

I have tried to question the very "facts" you represent here. But if you have more "facts" that can make a stronger argument, then I would look forward to seeing them.

You have noticed all the news with the local government on Union Pacific right? Nothing is imminent but it's headed in one direction. Something about derailments and chlorine gas and the like thats starting to piss people off.

A side benefit that happens to be a major issue at the time.

Maybe the derailment issue can be solved in way that doesn't cost the taxpayers $2.4 billion dollars. Maybe traffic will be less of an issue when the current expansion of 35 is completed.

I could be wrong on this, because I'm just assuming, but their using projected numbers. In other words, 35% difference at the time of implamentation.

If traffic on 35 increases by 50% in 20 years: 100 units of traffic increase by 50%

100 x 1.5 = 150 units of traffic

rail system removes 35% of commuter traffic from the traffic units.

Now this is a totally arbitrary number to use. But I will guess at a percentage of 7% trucks to 93% cars. I pick those numbers on a rough estimate off vehicle weight/pollution/and quantity. Quantity given more importance.

So currently we have 7 out of every 100 vehicles being a truck.

In 20 years that will be 10.5 trucks per 150 vehicles. 139.5 non-trucks.

35% of 139.5 = 48.825 vehicles

150-48.825 = 101.175 units of traffic.

So even with the light rail system fully implemented, we still would have nearly the same amount of traffic on the 35 corridor, the only difference being that trucks would make up a larger % of it.

xrayzebra

03-04-2005, 06:13 PM

All of those questions and more are answered in the link provied above. Feel free to read the study.

Okay I read it, where does it answer my questions?

Useruser666

03-04-2005, 06:14 PM

IH 35 is already 8 lanes in many places along the corridor. I think where most of the traffic/pollution/dangers occur is where construction reduces it to 2 lanes. Unless you meant 18 lanes in both directions, it would indicate that traffic will more than double in the next twenty years.

MannyIsGod

03-04-2005, 06:24 PM

Okay I read it, where does it answer my questions?

That Study alone is over 100 pages, you already read it?

MannyIsGod

03-04-2005, 06:31 PM

9 lanes in each direction. I know no place on IH35 where that is freasible.

Take it from me, I've worked in the freight industry, and there is no more effecient (cost and time wise) way of moving freight than by truck.

Truck traffic is going nowhere.

The study says we have to do something to improve that corridor. And that's at in 99, what they are finding now is simply reaffirming at a greater level.

The state has to do something, and the studies (this is the 3rd one) consistently come up with a commuter line as part of the best solution.

Useruser666

03-04-2005, 06:38 PM

MannyIsGod

03-04-2005, 06:42 PM

No, I am saying I don't want anything more than a local system to be looked at.

And that's not the State's job. TexDOT reviews issues on a statewide basis.

Ok, so we need more buses to use the rail system? Is that included in the estimated costs? How does that effect pollution?

Increased mass transit would be in order and yes, it is included within these studies. Enviromentaly the entire system would have a beneficial impact because trains and buses are more fuel efficent than cars and have a net effect of pulling vehicles off of the road.

There are alternatives to truck traffic. But why should the highways be used for truck traffic alone? What is being done to reduce truck traffic on our highways? I rather more freight railways be built between to ease truck traffic.

Railways are not as cheap and efficent as using trucks to move freight. It's simply too expensive. Not going to happen.

That doesn't mean you don't find solutions on lowering the amount of other traffic.

And a commuter rail going into place doesn't mean you cant explore options to lower truck traffic. But, you are going to have a much more difficult and expensive time doing that.

So, you don't want to put in a commuter line but you're willing to put in more freight lines? That doesn't make any financial sense, if I'm understanding you correctly.

You kind of touted your numbers and then you come back saying they are just estimates? That's fine, but I don't want to be hit over the head with numbers that can't hold up later on.

They are estimates, but they are sound ones.

You mean, maybe it would. As I demonstrated with your own math, it may cost more to use a light rail system for such commuting. Since you have now stated the numbers are just estimates, I think it's only fair to say that it's just and educated guess that it will save commuters/college students money.

Well, isnt' anything untill actual implamentation?

I mentioned the DC subway as an example, because it is a very localized system of transportation. I think it works very well on that local level. I think that's something that SA could use, albiet for the physical difference that SA has a very low population density.

A subway for San Antonio is not in the cards, nor is it nessecary.

I have tried to question the very "facts" you represent here. But if you have more "facts" that can make a stronger argument, then I would look forward to seeing them.

I posted quotes straight from TexDOT's own report.

Maybe the derailment issue can be solved in way that doesn't cost the taxpayers $2.4 billion dollars. Maybe traffic will be less of an issue when the current expansion of 35 is completed.

The traffic situation has already been taken into account. 18 lanes, 9 each way, will be needed. Not going to happen.

If traffic on 35 increases by 50% in 20 years: 100 units of traffic increase by 50%

100 x 1.5 = 150 units of traffic

rail system removes 35% of commuter traffic from the traffic units.

Now this is a totally arbitrary number to use. But I will guess at a percentage of 7% trucks to 93% cars. I pick those numbers on a rough estimate off vehicle weight/pollution/and quantity. Quantity given more importance.

So currently we have 7 out of every 100 vehicles being a truck.

In 20 years that will be 10.5 trucks per 150 vehicles. 139.5 non-trucks.

35% of 139.5 = 48.825 vehicles

150-48.825 = 101.175 units of traffic.

So even with the light rail system fully implemented, we still would have nearly the same amount of traffic on the 35 corridor, the only difference being that trucks would make up a larger % of it.

Yes, but without it you have a much larger amount of traffic don't you?

So in other words, with the commuter rail (it's not a light rail, 2 totally different systems), you can actually keep pace right?

You make the arguement for it right there.

MannyIsGod

03-04-2005, 06:49 PM

Uh, there are more efficient ways to move freight than truck. Trains and ships are two ways. Ships of course will not be floating between here and Austin anytime soon. I'd like to know the capacity of 35 without construction hot spots all over. How much business does greyhound do between Austin and SA? I would think that would be somewhat of an indicator to look over.

Chris, there is no greater efficient way of moving freight given the current infrastructre throught this country than by truck. Rail would only become equal given an enourmous increase in the rail infrastructur, which would cost an amount that is way too high.

Most ot the truck traffic coming up 35 does not go to Austin, it goes all over the country. SA is just a huge HUB for stuff coming out of Mexico. But anything that is going to go to the North East, or North Central, or even Northwest, is going to go up 35 at least to Dallas if not Memphis.

The capacity of 35 at the completion of the current construction project has been taken into account in all of these studies. They are planning based on future estimates and projections on future infrastructre in order to plan ahead. They are not using the current traffic models.

You can look over the study and just by glancing you will see much of the stuff that you are asking them to look at, has already been looked at and taken into account through these studies. This isn't the first time this conclusion has been reached or will be reached, it is the Third.

Useruser666

03-04-2005, 06:50 PM

Uh, no Manny, I don't. I think the system as proposed encourages people to live farther from where they go to school or work and I believe that is a mistake. I don't believe the system is a big enough of a benefit to justify it's cost.

MannyIsGod

03-04-2005, 06:59 PM

Why is that a mistake?

I believe this opens up more doors to people who live in seperate places, why is that bad? If it allows me to live in San Antonio and go to school in Austin, why is that bad?

The money that is going into the system will be spent one way or another. TexDOT will have to do something about the AusSan link. There's no way around it. This project is going to more than halfwayfunded by Federal dollars that have already been allocated and if are not spent here, will simply be spent elsewhere.

The tax increases are absolutely miniscule. 10 cents out of ever ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS.

There is a reason this sytem is comes out ahead in each of these studies. It's cheaper in the long run, it's more enviromentaly friendly, and it's faster and more efficent. That is the bottom line.

MannyIsGod

03-04-2005, 07:02 PM

Chris, they are taking a look at a future problem and this is the solution that comes up time and time again.

Highway Mobility Needs
Numerous improvements to increase northsouth
highway capacity within the corridor are
being constructed or are programmed for
implementation. A partial list of those
projects is included below.2 As a part of an
ongoing study of the IH 35 highway from
Mexico to Canada, it has been suggested that
as many as 18 lanes of highway might be
needed through the Austin area to handle the
projected growth. Since it is unlikely that 18
lanes will ever be built, there is the need to
explore other transportation alternatives in
addition to highway options.

Doing nothing is considered in each one of the studies, along with other options such as:

A full range of alternative transportation
improvements were included in the analysis.
These alternatives included the following:
• No Build Alternative;
• Travel Demand Management/ Transportation
System Management Alternative;
• High Occupancy Toll/High Occupancy
Vehicle Alternative;
• Busway along existing railroad right-of-way
Alternative;
• New Rail within existing rail right-of-way
Alternative;
• Shared Track with UP freight service
Alternative;
• Shared Track with UP through-freight traffic
rerouted Alternative.

The commuter rail comes out ahead. What do you think would be better? Doing nothing, has been considred, and has been ruled out as an option.

MannyIsGod

03-04-2005, 07:07 PM

I think you're misunderstanding why this is being proposed. This isn't being viewed as a way of generating more growth or some speculative development idea.

This is a solution. The traffic on that highway is going to get a level that it cannot handle, and this rail consistently comes out of studies as the way to go.

You say it doesn't justify the cost, but you are looking at it in the wrong way. We're going to have to spend that money either way. Thats why the money has been allocated. So you save no money by not building this rail, and in fact may end up costing the state MORE money

Clandestino

03-05-2005, 10:51 AM

manny, talks about via expanding as well in order for this train to be implemented... so, that would mean us spending even more money for another system that is already losing money... all this losing money bullshit is getting old.. face it, the train will just suck money out of our pockets left and right and not really solve any traffic problems...

MannyIsGod

03-05-2005, 11:06 AM

Clandestino

03-05-2005, 11:19 AM

Clan, repeat after me:

The State is going to have to do something. The rail is the most efficent method, and also the cheapest.

CHEAPEST AND EFFICENT.

Via does more with the amount of money it's giving than any other mass transit district. It's funded by a smaller amount that almost any other MT operation in the country, definetly when compared to cities of the same size.

Like I said, what would you rather do Clan? What do you know that those 2 and soon to be 3 studies don't?

who the fuck are you kidding? via sucks.. to get from one side of town to the next can take hours.. that is far from efficient... and it isn't cheap when the whole city has to pay just to keep it running.. efficient would be getting people anywhere in the city within 1 hr... and being self-sufficient would make it cheap...

build roads... this train will only suck money out and not alleviate any of the traffic problems...

the people pushing for the train stand to make lots of money..

MannyIsGod

03-05-2005, 11:25 AM

Clandestino

03-05-2005, 01:36 PM

ChumpDumper

03-05-2005, 02:06 PM

I'd like to know where the extra 10 lanes are going to be put in central Austin where they've aleady built up and only fit in four.

Clandestino

03-05-2005, 04:12 PM

I'd like to know where the extra 10 lanes are going to be put in central Austin where they've aleady built up and only fit in four.

where would the train fit?

MannyIsGod

03-05-2005, 04:36 PM

where would the train fit?

:lmao

The tracks are already there for the Union Pacific right of way that they woudl take over. The new tracks being built would not be one's being used by the commuter rail, but by Union Pacific.

MannyIsGod

03-05-2005, 04:38 PM

my cousin tried to take the bus to work, but it would have taken him 2 1/2 to get to work 15 miles away... that is ridiculous...

i see nothing wrong with larger highways... larger highways definitely allow traffic to flow smoother, but this train is unproven.. the only thing we know is it will cost shitloads of money and most likely never make a penny...

Sucks for your cousin, I guarntee you I can get to the opposite side of town in under an hour.

Ok, Where are you giong to put those lanes? And you're complaining about the money, yet you don't want to acknowledge that a highway will cost MORE!

Brodels

03-05-2005, 08:09 PM

People simply aren't going to use it enough to justify the cost. It will never, ever operate with being subsidized.

Commuter train systems only work when there is a strong local transportation system on at least one end to get people to where they want to go. You can drive to a train station and hop on the train, but what are you going to do when you get to the train station on the other end? Are you going to take a taxi where you need to go? A bus?

The answer: you're going to brave the traffic so you can go wherever you want to go. People don't like to take the bus like they tolerate taking other rapid transit. Commuter rail works in Boston because people from the suburbs can easily transfer to the T in the city and easily go where they need to go. Same with DC. Metra works in Chicago because you can easily transfer to the Elevated and you can buy a monthly pass that will cover both systems.

Unless there is a strong local transportation system, a commuter rail system will never meet expectations. Train stations give people access to a very small geographic area of a town or city, and that simply doesn't work for people.

JoeChalupa

03-05-2005, 08:27 PM

I'll be happy when I can just "beam" myself where ever I want to go.

MannyIsGod

03-05-2005, 08:29 PM

Exhibit 7-3
Year 2000 Average Weekday Person Trips
Station Time Period Total
Peak Off
Peak
Georgetown 270 130 400
Round Rock 370 180 550
McNeil Jct. 150 10 160
US 183 * 170 40 210
RM 2222 * 360 70 430
Austin CBD 1,180 190 1,370
Ben White Blvd. ** 770 140 910
San Marcos 1,250 240 1,490
New Braunfels 220 50 270
Selma 130 90 220
San Antonio Airport 590 70 660
San Antonio CBD 2 870 240 1,110
Kelly 250 60 310
Total 6,580 1,510 8,090

A projection of 8,000 users a day. 8,090 actually. Using models that take into account the urban structures of everything along the corridor, including the transportation situations at the ends of the hub.

However, the report goes on to acknowledge this may be optomistic.

I'll post that next.

MannyIsGod

03-05-2005, 08:32 PM

Exhibit 7-4
Year 2020 Average Weekday Person Trips
Station Time Period Total
Peak Off
Peak
Georgetown 470 270 740
Round Rock 710 400 1,100
McNeil Jct. 170 40 210
US 183 * 250 70 320
RM 2222 * 470 110 580
Austin CBD 1,520 290 1,810
Ben White Blvd. ** 790 190 980
San Marcos 1,470 330 1,800
New Braunfels 400 90 490
Selma 210 130 340
San Antonio Airport 570 60 630
San Antonio CBD 1,150 350 1,500
Kelly 380 100 480
Total 8,560 2,430 10,990

Predicting a 11,000 passanger load per day by 2020.

MannyIsGod

03-05-2005, 08:34 PM

Exhibit 7-5 compares several key parameters for
recently developed commuter rail systems across
the US and Canada. This exhibit is offered as a
reality check for the ridership projections described
in the previous paragraphs. A review of
this exhibit would suggest that a ridership forecast
of 8,090 daily passengers in an opening year of
2000 for the Austin-San Antonio corridor may be
optimistic. However, given the nature of this
corridor with a major urban area on each end,
ridership levels in the 8,000 daily passenger range
do not seem unreasonable within the first few years
of operation.

Brodels, you fail to take into account that the rail stations would be strategically placed in San Antonio and Austin to allow for easy transportation. It's not like they are going to stick all of the stations in BFE man, com'on now.

MannyIsGod

03-05-2005, 08:36 PM

Exhibit 7-5
Comparison of Commuter Rail Systems
Total Length Daily Ridership
(miles) One-way Fare First Year
COMMUTER Population First Year
RAIL SYSTEM of Service (Number of (Fare Box of (Current Daily
NAME Area Stations) Recovery) Operation Ridership)
Trinity Railway
Express (TRE) - 10 miles $1.00 450
Dallas 1 4.5 million (3) (2%) 1996 (2,100)
TriRail 2 - South 74 miles $5.50 3,000
Florida 4 million (19 stations) (23%) 1989 (8,500)
Coaster 3 - San 41 miles $3.25 2,000
Diego n.a. (8 stations) (17%) 1995 (4,100)
Virginia Railway 135 miles
Express (VRE) 4 (21 stations) $6.70 3,800
Washington DC 1.3 million [2 lines] (50%) 1994 (7,050)
ACE 5 - Calif
Central Valley to 85 miles $10.00 n.a.
San Jose n.a. (9 stations) (n.a.) 1998 (1,600)
CalTrain - 6 77 miles $6.75 n.a.
SF peninsula n.a. (34 stations) (37%) 1864 (27,000)
Wisconsin Central 61 miles $5.80 1,000
(METRA) 7 7.5 million (14 stations) (55%) 1996 (4,500)
MetroLink 8 400 miles
Los Angeles area (46 stations) $9.75 2,400
15.8 million [6 lines] (46%) 1992 (25,000)
MARC 9 - 187 miles $3.25, $5.75
Baltimore - (38 stations) & $11.50 n.a.
Washington DC n.a. [3 lines] (49%) 1974 (20,000)
Vancouver West 10 40 miles $7.00 5,000
Coast Express n.a. (8 stations) (35%) 1995 (7,600)

MannyIsGod

03-05-2005, 08:37 PM

That's a fucked up translation of a table in a PDF, but it shows you other places where the conditions are simillar to this project, and it's working. In fact, many of those have a smaller population.

JoeChalupa

03-05-2005, 08:52 PM

Do you think Texans will readily give up their vehicles and begin using the commuter rail?
Do people in NY and Chicago use the transit system out of necessity, due to the high cost of parking and the fact that if everyone did try to drive the road system simply couldn't handle to flow?
I know I like having my own car so I can leave and go where I want to go and not be bound by a route or stops.

But I've also used VIA many times and did so for quite some time. I got used to it and the long time it took me to get from Converse to N. Braunfels & Houston St. soon seemed shorter.

Mass transit systems are the way of the future I think.

Guru of Nothing

03-05-2005, 10:47 PM

My contribution ....

The inner Buddy Holly in me loves mass transit, so much in fact, that I say F* this 80-90 mph train. Lets's go 200 mph bullet-train and link Dallas, Austin San Antonio and Houston (throw in Monterrey if you are feeling generous). But there is a flaw in my thinking. I don't take into account the problem of Urban Sprawl. Urban sprawl just sucks the life out of worthy mass transit intentions.

On which side of Loop 410 do you live Manny?

1369

03-05-2005, 11:25 PM

Isn't all this discussion for the commuter line all for naught? I thought the Trans Texas Corridor was going to take all these issues on? Reason I say this, is that my old boss (Who now heads Skanska USA's highway group) was in town over the weekend to see about partnering up locally on the 281 projects. Skanska lost the TTA bid as a Spanish firm offered $1 Billion in concessions versus their $500 million. And I can remember the days when we'd adjudicate bids and $10,000 was a lot of cash....

1369

03-05-2005, 11:31 PM

From the Washington Post

Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A6370-2005Feb7?language=printer)

In December, the Texas Transportation Commission chose a private consortium led by a Madrid-based toll road operator to construct the first segment of the corridor. Cintra Concesiones de Infraestructuras de Transporte SA, in conjunction with a San Antonio construction company, will build 316 miles of four-lane turnpike, with substantial room for expansion, from north of Dallas to east of San Antonio. The cities are connected by the most congested portion of Interstate 35 in Texas -- a stretch of road packed with commuters at rush hour and freight trucks round-the-clock. The "Trans-Texas Corridor 35" will be built east of and parallel to I-35 and construction will begin, subject to environmental approval, in the next five years.

Cintra will spend $6 billion to build the highway and will give the state an additional $1.2 billion to fund other road-improvement projects along I-35, Texas's primary NAFTA truck route. In exchange, Cintra will get the right to charge state-approved tolls on the road for 50 years. The Texas Transportation Department will spend $3.5 million to develop the master plan for the turnpike, but other details are still being worked out. Officials expect to sign a contract with Cintra this month.

Aggie Hoopsfan

03-05-2005, 11:51 PM

Admittedly I'm getting in on this late, but...

Express trains could whoosh passengers as fast as 80 mph, getting them from downtown San Antonio to downtown Austin in 92 minutes. The same trip by car takes from 94 to 105 minutes during rush hour.

They better cut that time in half if they want anyone to use it. Who is going to pay 24 dollars a day to ride some stupid train that saves them three minutes of commute time? That's assenine. It's gotta be a bullet train (which of course means UP rails are not gonna cut it), and it's gotta be cheaper for those riding daily.

In the same vein, unless you've got some efficient transportation spokes at either end of the line, it ain't gonna work out.

Finally, who is the market for this? Where's the hard figures on the number of Austin workers living in SA that's going to warrant such demand for this thing? Don't tell me we're building a 2 billion dollar slow ass train for 10,000 people, that's a waste of money.

MannyIsGod

03-06-2005, 12:50 AM

GoN, I live a block from 1604 outside of San Antonio City limits. I stay alot at Jessica's however and she also lives outside of 410.

Clandestino

03-06-2005, 08:47 AM

:lmao

The tracks are already there for the Union Pacific right of way that they woudl take over. The new tracks being built would not be one's being used by the commuter rail, but by Union Pacific.

yeah, union pacific and their train derailing tracks... how many derailments have they had with hazardous cargo in the past couple years?

Clandestino

03-06-2005, 08:48 AM

billions of dollars to spend so 8-11 thousand can save time? BULL-FUCKING-SHIT... that doesn't sound like an efficient project... an intercity electric street car thing would make more sense....

Johnny_Blaze_47

03-06-2005, 11:27 AM

Fuck. Nevermind.

MannyIsGod

03-06-2005, 01:43 PM

8-10k per DAY.

Ah, I don't know why I post numbers in a forum when people have no concept of what context to take them in.

Nevermind, the rail is a shitty idea.

MannyIsGod

03-06-2005, 01:46 PM

billions of dollars to spend so 8-11 thousand can save time? BULL-FUCKING-SHIT... that doesn't sound like an efficient project... an intercity electric street car thing would make more sense....

You amaze me with your ability to spot bullshit based on your grand expertise. European travel has opened your eyes to the future, no doubt. I hope to be like you one day, but only after my trip to The Louvre.

Clandestino

03-06-2005, 02:22 PM

if the number were 10,000 people per day..that would only be .01% of the population of san antonio using the train... that doesn't even include austinites and all the people not from here just passing through... waste of money... what part of billions of dollars spent on a few people don't you understand?

JoeChalupa

03-06-2005, 02:25 PM

I still say Texans like their trucks.

Drachen

03-08-2005, 08:27 PM

Dude, we don't need a subway system. What the hell?

Smaller scale transportation system?

What the hell?

You know Via isin the process of growing right?

Chris, are you being serious?

subway, no not right now, but some sort of light rail here in san antonio is needed. Via is growing, big deal, we are a big enough city that we need to have complimentary forms of public transportation.

Drachen

03-08-2005, 08:32 PM

the reason europe and our larger cites in the u.s. have public transportation systems built up is because they have no parking.......... it is cheaper for people to use public transportation.........plus the traffic is too bad to warrant driving in it.. not to mentionin europe it costs between 3.50-4.50 for a gallon of gas.. none of thse conditions really affect our area...

also, a person would still have to walk or drive to get to the light rail center...

First highlighted point: You proposed to just keep on building highway lanes, why didnt they just build some parking lots?

Second Point: Do you see the irony in this statment, "we shouldnt do it because it will save us money"

Third point: So you are saying we should wait around until this condition afflicts us THEN do something about it??

Lastly: I think I would rather have someone drive from the far west side of san antonio to any of the proposed train stations, than from the far west side of san antonio, to the north side of Austin.

Drachen

03-08-2005, 09:13 PM

Build roads.

You know that we'll need 9 lanes each way to Austin right? You know that's not going to get nearly as much federal funding and therefor we're giong to spend MORE money right?

TexDOT is the one pushing for a train, who would make money from that?

What do you know they that don't Clan? give me SOMETHING to back up your claim!

Oh, and you can get to the other side of town on Via in under an hour now. The bus service really has been vamped up, and it gets way less local funding than most mass transit. I can back all of that up with figures and times, can you back up your words?

Sorry manny as far as the whole rail system is concerned, I am all for it but I have to call BS on your "across town in under an hour" theory with via... I took the number 9 from right in front of the court house changed busses to the 647 at broadway and castano, which then stopped at a little "sub station" at nakoma and 281 (in front of the old theater) then the 647 became the 648 which went up to where I got off at HEB at 281 and 1604. When I changed busses on broadway, I had to wait 8 minutes for the 647, it stops at nakoma for 5 minutes before starting again. Round up thats 15 mins. The entire trip took 2 hrs - 15mins=1:45. That is only half-way across the city BTW. (oh and that wasnt my final destination... Via doesnt go to encino park, so I needed to take a taxi from there.)

Edit: there are other ways of doing getting from said point a to said point b, but they take longer.

Drachen

03-08-2005, 09:23 PM

billions of dollars to spend so 8-11 thousand can save time? BULL-FUCKING-SHIT... that doesn't sound like an efficient project... an intercity electric street car thing would make more sense....

8-11 thousand a day. This is with trains running every 30 minutes, as demand grows we could increase the amount of trains to increase supply. Also, I am sure (and this is in my own opinion) that as time passes we would add rail lines to increase supply. Now you may ask if we are going to increase the amount of rail lines, why not the amount of highway lanes, and the reason is, more people can fit onto a train for the space it takes up, than onto a highway. Oh, and there are also "hidden savings" as well such as we will have to spend less on medicare due to the the fact that 5-9k of cars wont be polluting from austin to san antonio, just as an example.

Guru of Nothing

03-08-2005, 09:41 PM

How many square miles are served by public transportation? Urban Sprawl sucks all the wind out of good public transportation designs. I think I said as much the other day.

Y'all keep discussing public transportation, but without intelligent urban design, you are wasting your time, no matter how good your intentions.

Drachen

03-08-2005, 09:53 PM

jalbre6

03-08-2005, 09:53 PM

I'm of the opinion that mass transit is a waste of time for most Texans. The TRE here in Dallas is a joke. I live in Arlington and take the train to the AAC for hockey and basketball games, and have never seen more than 10 other people at my stop. BTW, that's only $2.25. METRORail in Houston is more of the same, even during the Super bowl.

Then again, when I lived in Denver people used it all the time when commuting downtown from Englewood and Littleton. In Chicago, there would routinely be 100+ people waiting from my stop in Addison to get downtown. Another thing is that there are massive PR campaigns in both towns for people to use the train, for convienence and for saving time.

Hell, I like taking the train because noone else does.

jalbre6

03-08-2005, 09:56 PM

Y'all keep discussing public transportation, but without intelligent urban design, you are wasting your time, no matter how good your intentions.

Probably the best point of this thread. Unless there is a massive public inforamtion campaign and a complete makeover of public planning as we know it, this is either a pipedream or a waste of money.

Clandestino

03-09-2005, 12:20 AM

First highlighted point: You proposed to just keep on building highway lanes, why didnt they just build some parking lots?

Second Point: Do you see the irony in this statment, "we shouldnt do it because it will save us money"

Third point: So you are saying we should wait around until this condition afflicts us THEN do something about it??

Lastly: I think I would rather have someone drive from the far west side of san antonio to any of the proposed train stations, than from the far west side of san antonio, to the north side of Austin.

they can't build parking lots because there is no room..have you been to europe or to the east coast??? space is a premium... esp in europe...you will not find huge parking lots like we have here....

in europe it is cheaper to use public transportation...not here...especially when you factor in waiting times and transportation times... 4 hrs of commuting is a lot...

Clandestino

03-09-2005, 12:21 AM

8-11 thousand a day. This is with trains running every 30 minutes, as demand grows we could increase the amount of trains to increase supply. Also, I am sure (and this is in my own opinion) that as time passes we would add rail lines to increase supply. Now you may ask if we are going to increase the amount of rail lines, why not the amount of highway lanes, and the reason is, more people can fit onto a train for the space it takes up, than onto a highway. Oh, and there are also "hidden savings" as well such as we will have to spend less on medicare due to the the fact that 5-9k of cars wont be polluting from austin to san antonio, just as an example.

if the trains in the u.s. that actually have a huge ridership don't even make enough money to stay afloat w/o gov subsidies..how the hell is our shitty, limited service train supposed to?

Clandestino

03-09-2005, 12:22 AM

Drachen

03-09-2005, 12:49 AM

they can't build parking lots because there is no room..have you been to europe or to the east coast??? space is a premium... esp in europe...you will not find huge parking lots like we have here....

in europe it is cheaper to use public transportation...not here...especially when you factor in waiting times and transportation times... 4 hrs of commuting is a lot...

I kind of baited you into answering that question, actually, because when I am driving to austin, there arent many places that I see room for 18 lanes of highway.

Its also cheaper to use public transportation here too (but as you said VIA sucks). If we have a good system in place, though, financed through, say, a gas tax, it would make it more viable to use.

P.S. I was an exchange student in Germany for a year, and travelled to most western european countries. As for the east coast I have only been to DC for a week.

MannyIsGod

03-09-2005, 12:51 AM

MannyIsGod

03-09-2005, 12:52 AM

Also, don't be suprised to see those ridership figures go way up when the new study is completed. The older study was calculated using a travel time much slower than driving to Austin. The new rail will be at the same speed or faster, which will have an increse ridership effect.

Drachen

03-09-2005, 12:52 AM

if the trains in the u.s. that actually have a huge ridership don't even make enough money to stay afloat w/o gov subsidies..how the hell is our shitty, limited service train supposed to?

I dont know the viability of this, but I think that for this particular line it would work in much the same way as a business that sells off assets to re-focus on its core business. The differences are that we would be a startup but would only have one line (core business). Amtrack actually makes money off of its most successful lines (i.e. Baltimore to DC) but loses money elsewhere. Thus the subsidies. Since this corridor is SO popular that we are even discussing it, I would think that we wouldnt have to worry too much about the demand.

Drachen

03-09-2005, 12:55 AM

Drachen, I do it on almost a daily baisis. I travel over 20 miles on VIA in under an hour.

You can move even faster on the Express Buses. They are only in place on the major routes, so it doesn't apply to every sitaution, but VIA service is MUCH improved over even a few years ago.

I know that its improved, and I know that it won Best Metro Transit award in Texas in 03, and is a contender for 04, but I guess my opinion is skewed in that I never had to ride the bus here when I was younger, and my first experience was in Berlin Germany, and it was freaking excellent. So in my opinion via sucks.

MannyIsGod

03-09-2005, 12:58 AM

Yeah, I'd imagine that mass transit is going to be hard pressed to ever be as functional in a city that has developed post 1950.

Clandestino

03-09-2005, 09:20 AM

I kind of baited you into answering that question, actually, because when I am driving to austin, there arent many places that I see room for 18 lanes of highway.

Its also cheaper to use public transportation here too (but as you said VIA sucks). If we have a good system in place, though, financed through, say, a gas tax, it would make it more viable to use.

P.S. I was an exchange student in Germany for a year, and travelled to most western european countries. As for the east coast I have only been to DC for a week.

it is not cheaper to use via for most people... time is money...and most people don't have an extra 2-4hrs in their day to waste waiting on slow ass busses... my cousin wanted to take via to work bc he is kind of like manny(his views)... but he couldn't because there was no possible way for him to get to work under 2 hrs 45mins...and his work was 15 miles away.. ridiculous...

gas tax??? we already have a million taxes... you want gas to be 4 dollars a gallon like in germany? i don't think so... and it gas tax was financing..then obviously ridership isn't...

we are in the u.s...not europe... we aren't into giving stuff away for free... i was a legal, TAX-PAYING, resident of germany, not a foreign exchange student... i paid 46% taxes on my income... i don't see anyone in here wanting to do the same for a commuter rail, healthcare for all, etc..

when people say, it can be done in europe, why can't we do it here...apples and oranges..

Extra Stout

03-09-2005, 11:18 AM

Wait, so we're going to build I-69 and its various spurs, and SH-130, and TTC-35, and expand the crap out of I-35, and build rail?

Damn.

Clandestino

03-09-2005, 11:29 AM

here is today's woai poll question..

INSTAPOLL

With gas prices set to skyrocket, what do you plan to do? [related story]
Walk everywhere...
5.7%
Buy a hybrid car...
5.4%
Pay up...
83.1%
Ride the Bus...
5.8%

people are more willing to drive with higher gas prices than ride the bus... it is funnier that 5.7 said they would walk and 5.8 said ride the bus... so much for public transportation in san antonio...

Useruser666

03-09-2005, 11:56 AM

I would pay $3000 if my truck would get twice the gas millage.

Useruser666

03-14-2005, 09:56 AM

Bump...

from www.woai.com instapoll.

INSTAPOLL
Would you support a commuter rail line between San Antonio & Austin?
Yes, it's a good idea...
74.9%
No, I wouldn't use it...
25.1%

Clandestino

03-14-2005, 12:38 PM

polls are very easily manipulated.. if they had asked, "would you support a commuter rail between sa-austin if it would cost 1 billion dollars". the poll would've looked like

Yes, it's a good idea..
1%
Not no, but hell no...
99%