why is san antonio so vehicle oriented?

[DickTraceyMatters]

there are no light rail options.

the via buses are shit. always late and takes way too much time to be feasible.

everything in san antonio requires that you drive to it.

why is nothing here "walkable"?

is this why san antonio is fat or is san antonio too fat to even consider walking?

[BlackSwordsMan]

Maybe cause you live in the fucking ghettos?

[METALMiKE]

It's going to change soon. (I hope)

http://smartwaysa.com/

http://www.viabrt.net/Content/BRTMain.aspx

http://sa2020.org/

[Blake]

there are no light rail options.

the via buses are shit. always late and takes way too much time to be feasible.

everything in san antonio requires that you drive to it.

why is nothing here "walkable"?

is this why san antonio is fat or is san antonio too fat to even consider walking?

because San Antonio is not downtown oriented.

[Sisk]

because San Antonio is not downtown oriented.

/thread

[Jekka]

Because all of the times that something like a lightrail system showed up on a ballot, people were too short-sighted to want to dedicate any of their tax money to it.

I live in Santa Fe (pop. about 60,000), where we have a train that goes between here and Albuquerque (pop. about 530,000) on a daily basis for commuters and tourists. SA and Austin, which are a lot bigger (and I-35 is a veritable clusterfuck) have needed something like that for a LONG FREAKING TIME.

[Ginobilly]

because San Antonio is not downtown oriented.

This. I guess it's also the reason why San Antonio is always tops in the nation in DWI arrests.

[desflood]

there are no light rail options.

the via buses are shit. always late and takes way too much time to be feasible.

everything in san antonio requires that you drive to it.

why is nothing here "walkable"?

is this why san antonio is fat or is san antonio too fat to even consider walking?
Because nine months out of the year it's too damn hot to walk.

[METALMiKE]

I live in Santa Fe (pop. about 60,000), where we have a train that goes between here and Albuquerque (pop. about 530,000) on a daily basis for commuters and tourists. SA and Austin, which are a lot bigger (and I-35 is a veritable clusterfuck) have needed something like that for a LONG FREAKING TIME.


http://lonestarrail.com/index.php/lstar/

[RoddyBukkake]

because you're a fucking loser if you need to take a bus or train to get around town

in Dallas we have the DARTRail but it might as well be called the NigRail

[Dex]

because San Antonio is not downtown oriented.

Pretty much this. Plus the commerce in San Antonio is spread over a wide, WIDE area. The town is too big for standard options of public transport (walking, biking) and the city hasn't been able to fund a rail project which, once again, would have a hard time covering all the needed areas. That just leaves via via, and the bus is always a pain in the ass.

When I was in San Antonio, I dated who girl who also resided in San Antonio, but lived like 50 minutes away. That is a ridiculous distance considering we both wrote the same damn city on all of our envelopes. Simply a matter of too much ground to cover.

[coyotes_geek]

Because all of the times that something like a lightrail system showed up on a ballot, people were too short-sighted to want to dedicate any of their tax money to it.

I wish Austin voters were "shortsighted" like that. Cap Metro spent $150 million on a rail system that now carries about 1,000 people a day. It's a complete disaster. Light rail as a concept is one thing, but it's all about the application. No light rail is far, far better than poorly implemented light rail.

[Destro]

The Austin light rail was poorly designed as well. They should have built an Airport to downtown rail and a North/South Austin light rail to replace the #1 bus line. Instead they built a "commuter rail" from Leander to Downtown skipping the airport. Business went against the rail saying the temporary closers would kill their bottom line.

SA is to much of an urban sprawl for light rail. They need to fight Leon Valley and build a highway overpass on Bandera road from 410 through 1604, imminent domain 1604 and expand that shit to 5 lanes on each side, and build an overpass on 183 from 1604 through Blanco Tx.

[MannyIsGod]

Because most of the development that went into San Antonio did not happen prior to WW2. Everything out west that has developed in the past 50 years is the same way. Well, maybe except a place like Portland but Portland is also very progressive.

If you live near downtown in SA you can get around without a car all the time, however.

[MannyIsGod]

The Austin light rail was poorly designed as well. They should have built an Airport to downtown rail and a North/South Austin light rail to replace the #1 bus line. Instead they built a "commuter rail" from Leander to Downtown skipping the airport. Business went against the rail saying the temporary closers would kill their bottom line.

SA is to much of an urban sprawl for light rail. They need to fight Leon Valley and build a highway overpass on Bandera road from 410 through 1604, imminent domain 1604 and expand that shit to 5 lanes on each side, and build an overpass on 183 from 1604 through Blanco Tx.

Not going to help and its going to cost a shit load of money. San Antonio needs to start thinking vertically and stop moving out. So much damn sprawl in that city and yet there's even a ton of open space close to downtown.

[Frenzy]

Because all of the times that something like a lightrail system showed up on a ballot, people were too short-sighted to want to dedicate any of their tax money to it.

I live in Santa Fe (pop. about 60,000), where we have a train that goes between here and Albuquerque (pop. about 530,000) on a daily basis for commuters and tourists. SA and Austin, which are a lot bigger (and I-35 is a veritable clusterfuck) have needed something like that for a LONG FREAKING TIME.

We can pray.

[Blake]

They need to fight Leon Valley and build a highway overpass on Bandera road from 410 through 1604.

that would be awesome if it ever happened.

but it won't. Chacho's would complain too much about losing business and Leon Valley cops would write a million fewer red light tickets.

[DickTraceyMatters]

Yea, Manny but there is still no grocery store downtown in San Antonio. That is some redneck shit, aint it? Metro of 2 million and no place to buy groceries downtown...

gayyy

[DarrinS]

Does Austin have light rail?

[DarrinS]

There are no Barnes and Nobel stores on the south side of SA.


Hmmmm. Maybe demand for light rail is low in SA.

[DickTraceyMatters]

So basically the ignorant white guys and the wanna be cowboy mexicans are so insecure that they need to keep each having their very own F350 Diesel with no concern to the environment and the air they continue to pollute

[silverblk mystix]

If that is you in the photo and if those things are real-then you should never-ever have to walk anywhere.

[PakiDan]

Yea, Manny but there is still no grocery store downtown in San Antonio. That is some redneck shit, aint it? Metro of 2 million and no place to buy groceries downtown...

gayyy

http://www.hipposgroceryanddeli.com/index.php

[DesignatedT]

There working on it.

[PakiDan]

There are no Barnes and Nobel stores on the south side of SA.


Hmmmm. Maybe demand for light rail is low in SA.

It's the damned southside city council members who kill any progressive initiative introduced in city council. They cry about any project not taking place in their districts and keep us from moving forward like a city our size should. Look at the poor decision for the placement of the AT&T Center.... brought to you by your backwards council members! As long as San Antonio keeps electing these diabetic Mexican fuckers with the poor me, handout attitude then we are going to continue to have the development prowess of a Mexican border city. Fuck the south side!

[Jekka]

I wish Austin voters were "shortsighted" like that. Cap Metro spent $150 million on a rail system that now carries about 1,000 people a day. It's a complete disaster. Light rail as a concept is one thing, but it's all about the application. No light rail is far, far better than poorly implemented light rail.

From the schedule, it looks like it stops running before 8pm - they're missing anyone who uses taxis or a designated driver, for one (and in Austin that's a pretty significant number).

It looks like an overly ambitious start - it's a shit ton of money spent on not a lot of coverage. Austin is such a nightmare to drive in that I think with extended coverage it would become more feasible for people. No one, however, wants to have to drive to a train station, take the train, AND then possibly have to get on a bus. For that much hassle, you might as well drive and not put up with all of the other commuters who you may be dealing with before your morning coffee.

Houston's light rail, on the other hand, has limited coverage, but a significant daily ridership. When they first implemented the idea, I laughed at the fact that it basically goes from downtown to downtown, but it does connect the stadium, the medical center (parking NIGHTMARE), and downtown (also a parking nightmare). From what I understand, the light rail system there gets used not so much for commuting as for just getting around the general area. They're looking at expanding it soon, and hopefully it WILL be used for more commuters. As hot an inhospitable as Austin/SA are for having to venture outside to get to your job, Houston is worse.

[ChumpDumper]

From the schedule, it looks like it stops running before 8pm - they're missing anyone who uses taxis or a designated driver, for one (and in Austin that's a pretty significant number).That's because the freight trains run at night. Austin had a chance to buy the right of ways so the freight lines would bypass the city, but they passed. Coincidentally, that could have also allowed an expansion of MoPac instead of the ridiculous toll proposals that are coming down from idiots.

I think a UT/downtown/airport line is in the beginning of planning stages; hopefully the city keeps Cap Metro out of it.

[austN Spur]

150 million for that much rail:lmao It couldve been usefull to me but where i would get on at parmer to go downtown is out of my way 5-10 mins. So its too much trouble and for the price of $3+ a a day I'd rather ride the bus.

http://mappery.com/maps/Austin-MetroRail-Map.mediumthumb.jpg

[MannyIsGod]

It's the damned southside city council members who kill any progressive initiative introduced in city council. They cry about any project not taking place in their districts and keep us from moving forward like a city our size should. Look at the poor decision for the placement of the AT&T Center.... brought to you by your backwards council members! As long as San Antonio keeps electing these diabetic Mexican fuckers with the poor me, handout attitude then we are going to continue to have the development prowess of a Mexican border city. Fuck the south side!

You're so full of shit. San Antonio has historically fucked Hispanics when it comes to placement of roadways and infrastructure. 281 is an excellent example of that but really all you need to do is look at the street conditions in most parts of town and then look at who lives there.

The history of San Antonio city politics is quite amazing. Letting people in the north side elect the representation for the south side until 1977 is some fucked up shit.

And now because council members want to fight for projects in their district as they're supposed to you want to call them out on that? Yeah, if I lived in those districts I'd tell you to go fuck yourself.

BTW, the AT&T center is where it is because its on county ground. I don't remember why the city proposal didn't make it through but I SERIOUSLY doubt it was due to the south side and probably had more to do with northsiders not wanting to pay additional taxes.

[austN Spur]

Its funny that it stops at Highland Mall. It's the Westlakes of Austin Malls

[MannyIsGod]

Actually if I remember correctly the city and the Spurs had a deal but the Spurs are the ones who backed out and went with the county proposal instead. Yeah, fucking southside council members!

[MannyIsGod]

So the Austin light rail doesn't even connect to UT?

[ChumpDumper]

BTW, the AT&T center is where it is because its on county ground. I don't remember why the city proposal didn't make it through but I SERIOUSLY doubt it was due to the south side and probably had more to do with northsiders not wanting to pay additional taxes.There was some of that, but I do remember that razing Victoria Courts to build it was not an option due to political opposition. If that was really a problem though, it should have ended up in the Alamodome parking lot.

[ChumpDumper]

So the Austin light rail doesn't even connect to UT?No, it was the easiest route to put in, and the mayor of Leander was on the board of Cap Metro. I guess they just wanted their foot in the door to make other lines possible down the line.

[coyotes_geek]

So the Austin light rail doesn't even connect to UT?

No. Nor the airport. It connects a small suburb to downtown and is paralleled by a tollway/freeway that can get you there in half the time.

It was destined to fail from the beginning.

[MannyIsGod]

Thats incredibly fucking stupid. Why didn't they make a viable connection to UT? More than one actually as big as that campus is. If you don't tap into the students there then its so useless.

Not including the airport is just as stupid. Light rail for the sake of light rail is retarded, of course.

[MannyIsGod]

There was some of that, but I do remember that razing Victoria Courts to build it was not an option due to political opposition. If that was really a problem though, it should have ended up in the Alamodome parking lot.


Considering those courts are gone I seriously doubt that was much of the problem. I tried looking for information online but it seems the interwebs doesn't give a shit about San Antonio's arena.

I thought the option was always to put it in the parking lot though.

[MannyIsGod]

No, it was the easiest route to put in, and the mayor of Leander was on the board of Cap Metro. I guess they just wanted their foot in the door to make other lines possible down the line.

I guess I can somewhat understand that sentiment but I still think ignoring UT is just such a stupid move.

[coyotes_geek]

From the schedule, it looks like it stops running before 8pm - they're missing anyone who uses taxis or a designated driver, for one (and in Austin that's a pretty significant number).

The trains used to run earlier in the morning and later at night, but the hours were cut back because no one was riding it.


It looks like an overly ambitious start - it's a shit ton of money spent on not a lot of coverage. Austin is such a nightmare to drive in that I think with extended coverage it would become more feasible for people. No one, however, wants to have to drive to a train station, take the train, AND then possibly have to get on a bus. For that much hassle, you might as well drive and not put up with all of the other commuters who you may be dealing with before your morning coffee.

183 isn't bad once you get past Mopac. That's the problem. The rail line parallels one of the least congested freeways in the city.


Houston's light rail, on the other hand, has limited coverage, but a significant daily ridership. When they first implemented the idea, I laughed at the fact that it basically goes from downtown to downtown, but it does connect the stadium, the medical center (parking NIGHTMARE), and downtown (also a parking nightmare). From what I understand, the light rail system there gets used not so much for commuting as for just getting around the general area. They're looking at expanding it soon, and hopefully it WILL be used for more commuters. As hot an inhospitable as Austin/SA are for having to venture outside to get to your job, Houston is worse.

Houston's system is off to a good start. What Houston is doing is what Austin should have done. It's all about implementation.

Also, there are just certain situations where light rail just won't be justified when compared to buses. Frankly I think San Antonio is one such situation.

[MannyIsGod]

I don't know about that. A light rail that basically went down the I10 Fredricksburg corridor from downtown to I10/1604 would probably generate a great deal of ridership but the problem is in the right of way.

Then again they have express buses that do that route and were very good as of a few years ago when I last rode one.

[MannyIsGod]

That being said, commuter rail between San Antonio and Austin should have happened a long time ago.

[ChumpDumper]

Thats incredibly fucking stupid. Why didn't they make a viable connection to UT? More than one actually as big as that campus is. If you don't tap into the students there then its so useless.

Not including the airport is just as stupid. Light rail for the sake of light rail is retarded, of course.The big trouble with those locations is there is no existing rail at either, so everything would have to be designed and built from scratch. That means many right of way issues, though there does seem to be some room for a rail along much of Airport Blvd and 183 going out to Bergstrom.

[MannyIsGod]

That seems to be the biggest hurdle for light rail in almost all situations. Right of way battles are a bitch.

[MannyIsGod]

Oh and I know this site doesn't exactly look super credible but I don't know why they'd put up fake articles. Maybe its run by south side council members trying to hide their mistakes.

http://basketball.ballparks.com/NBA/SanAntonioSpurs/articles.htm


SPURS CHOOSE COUNTY OPTION FOR NEW ARENA
August 12, 1999
Copyright 1999 MediaVentures
The San Antonio Spurs made a choice Wednesday and opted for the county's plan to build a new arena adjacent to Freeman Coliseum rather than go with the city which preferred a new venue next to the Alamodome. For the team, the issue came down to public opposition to a proposed sales tax that would be needed for the city's plan. The county would get money from hotel/motel and car rental taxes, along with user-based sources for the $175 million arena. The decision means the team will suspend talks with the city.
The city and county had been working on separate plans after the city rejected county overtures to plot a common path. City officials are concerned that a new arena could threaten the profitability of the Alamodome and wanted to control both venues. The county came back with an offer to create a sports authority that would oversee the Alamodome, a new arena and the county's Freeman Coliseum, but the city still declined.
The county must will work out details of its plan and the Spurs must say how much they are willing to contribute to the new arena. That work must be done by Tuesday so state officials can approve ballot language for November's vote. If approved, the new venue could open in 2002.
Nearly 60% of San Antonio residents polled say they are opposed to an increase in the sales tax to fund a new arena for the Spurs, but a larger margin, 66%, says a tax increase would be fine to pay for city infrastructure improvements. There is similar support for new taxes for job training, education and childhood development programs. The poll was conducted privately by six council members and has a margin of error of 4%.
The arena question found 44% in favor of a *-cent sales tax over 20 years. The city proposed a *-cent tax over 10 years.
The county's proposal does not call for a sales tax increase, but does require an increase in the hotel and car rental taxes, a ticket fee and parking taxes. The idea is opposed by those who profit from the tourist business who believe the taxes are already too high. The increase would put San Antonio on a par with Houston as having the highest hotel taxes in the nation. Houston's tax is 17%.
Another benefit to the county's plan is that the Freeman Coliseum is already host to the San Antonio Livestock Show. The major show draws large crowds that can help pay the cost of the new venue.
The poll also showed that voters by a slim margin preferred the idea of a new arena near the county's Freeman Coliseum as opposed to downtown near the Alamodome as the city has proposed. City officials said the question did not reflect the fact that parking is included in the city's proposal and residents believe more downtown parking is needed.
The Spurs have reportedly conducted their own poll, but those results have not been made public. Reports say the Spurs' poll shows the public favors a sports authority to oversee the Coliseum, Alamodome and new arena.
The new arena would cut business at the Alamodome where the team held 40% of the venue's total event dates. In a campaign last year for a new arena at a different location, the Spurs expressed confidence they could replace many of those dates and keep the venue profitable. The team pays nearly $1.5 million a year for its lease.

[DarrinS]

You're so full of shit. San Antonio has historically fucked Hispanics when it comes to placement of roadways and infrastructure. 281 is an excellent example of that but really all you need to do is look at the street conditions in most parts of town and then look at who lives there.

The history of San Antonio city politics is quite amazing. Letting people in the north side elect the representation for the south side until 1977 is some fucked up shit.

And now because council members want to fight for projects in their district as they're supposed to you want to call them out on that? Yeah, if I lived in those districts I'd tell you to go fuck yourself.

BTW, the AT&T center is where it is because its on county ground. I don't remember why the city proposal didn't make it through but I SERIOUSLY doubt it was due to the south side and probably had more to do with northsiders not wanting to pay additional taxes.



Infrastructure is always improved first in locations that have wealth. Is it fair? Perhaps not, but that's the way it is in almost every city.


The location of the AT&T center sucks ass. Oh well.

[coyotes_geek]

I don't know about that. A light rail that basically went down the I10 Fredricksburg corridor from downtown to I10/1604 would probably generate a great deal of ridership but the problem is in the right of way.

Then again they have express buses that do that route and were very good as of a few years ago when I last rode one.

That's pretty much the basis for my opinion. The bus system in SA is pretty good and it can be expanded for a fraction of the cost it would take to put in light rail. In cities with low population densities and multiple urban centers like San Antonio buses give you much better bang for the buck.


That being said, commuter rail between San Antonio and Austin should have happened a long time ago.

Money. UP runs too many trains on that Austin-SA track to share it with commuter rail and it's going to cost billions of dollars to relocate them somewhere else.

[DarrinS]

As to why San Antonio is so vehicle oriented, perhaps it is because people down here love their vehicles and don't want to get in a sardine can with the rest of you sweaty fucks.

[MannyIsGod]

Infrastructure is always improved first in locations that have wealth. Is it fair? Perhaps not, but that's the way it is in almost every city.


The location of the AT&T center sucks ass. Oh well.

Infrastructure went where it did in San Antonio because of at large voting. Let me explain it to you this way Darrin. If the United States had at large voting for Congress, I would get to vote on who your representative was. Would you like that very much?

[MannyIsGod]

As to why San Antonio is so vehicle oriented, perhaps it is because people down here love their vehicles and don't want to get in a sardine can with the rest of you sweaty fucks.

I guess the moment gas hits 4 bucks again or w/e then people will not care so much about the sweaty fucks in public transportation.

BTW, I'm typing this from a commuter train. I'm not the least bit sweaty and the people around me don't look (or smell) very sweaty either.

[DarrinS]

Infrastructure went where it did in San Antonio because of at large voting. Let me explain it to you this way Darrin. If the United States had at large voting for Congress, I would get to vote on who your representative was. Would you like that very much?


I'm just sayin, are they gonna build nice wide roads that lead to Joe's taco shack and rim rental? Or, are they gonna build nice wide roads that lead to large universities, medical centers, etc.?

[DarrinS]

I guess the moment gas hits 4 bucks again or w/e then people will not care so much about the sweaty fucks in public transportation.

BTW, I'm typing this from a commuter train. I'm not the least bit sweaty and the people around me don't look (or smell) very sweaty either.


Yeah, but you're not in SA in July.

[MannyIsGod]

I'm just sayin, are they gonna build nice wide roads that lead to Joe's taco shack and rim rental? Or, are they gonna build nice wide roads that lead to large universities, medical centers, etc.?

No, they're going to build a highway straight through a thriving middle class Hispanic neighborhood (281) and then they're going to vote to put the universities, medical centers etc in the northside so that 30 years later stupid fucks like you come along and say "of course they're building roads there".

They did a pretty fucking good job, apparently.

[MannyIsGod]

Of course 30 years later when the Southside has better representation and actually is getting universities and economic development like Toyota dumbfucks like Pakidan say they're just being dirty Mexicans.

I guess the moral of the story is dumb fucks will be dumb fucks.

[Dex]

Thats incredibly fucking stupid. Why didn't they make a viable connection to UT? More than one actually as big as that campus is. If you don't tap into the students there then its so useless.

Not including the airport is just as stupid. Light rail for the sake of light rail is retarded, of course.

Yeah, it's pretty useless.

I'm a 10 minute walk from the Lakeline stop, and have still never used the rail. Particularly since I don't work downtown, and it doesn't run during any of the times that I would prefer to be going (evening/nights).

Would definitely be a nice option as compared to a $40 cab ride, but apparently they don't want to cash in on the drinking crowd.

[MannyIsGod]

There's not much information online about the Good Government League but I was fortunate to have a professor who had done a good deal of research on the subject while I attended SAC. Much of what she collected was done via first hand interviews and accounts from those involved in politics through the era they controlled San Antonio. She gave them credit for certain accomplishments that benefit San Antonio such as the Hemisfair but they also funneled infrastructure where they wanted and not where it would benefit the citizens of San Antonio.

I believe at their height before at large voting came to an end they lost a grand total of 2 elections (this spans over decades).

This is the only detailed account I could find online.


To understand the magnitude of COPS accomplishments in the last 30 years,
one has to understand the socio-economic and political situation of the
Mexican American community in San Antonio during the 60s and early 70s.
Since the early 50s the GGL,(Good Government League) comprised of wealthy
Anglo ranchers and businessmen from the North Side had almost full control
of electoral politics in San Antonio. The GGL had the wealth, clout and
influence, to arbitrarily select as well as generate the votes to elect
City Councilmen in San Antonio.

Harry Boyte, of the Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, notes," In the
early seventies, San Antonio still had a "colonial" air where a small
group of businessmen, most of whom belonged to the segregated Texas
Cavalier Country Club, held sway. City council members were elected at
large, which meant that Mexican and African American candidates could
almost never raise funds to compete."

In a 1988 Commonwealth article, Henry Cisneros, who holds masters and
doctoral degrees from Harvard, noted that in the late 60s San Antonio was
"so poor that Peace Corps volunteers were trained in its barrios (West and
South sides) to simulate the conditions they would face in Latin America.
Thousands of Hispanics and black families lived in colonias, with
common-wall, shotgun houses built around public sanitation facilities with
outdoor toilets. The barrios had no sidewalks or paved streets, no
drainage system or flood control. Every spring brought flooding; families
were driven from their homes; children walked to school through mud
sloughs. In the shadow of downtown San Antonio lurked a stateside
third-world 'country'."

At the height of the civil-rights movement," Ernesto Cortes, former Senior
COPS organizer and recipient of a MacArthur "Genius" Award wrote, "It was
not unusual to equate the repressive conditions under which the Mexicanos
of South Texas lived to the situation of blacks in the Deep South. Racism
and cultural repression reinforced an economic need to maintain a
reactionary social and political framework for the state."

Fast Forward to 2005, when one sees the level of political diversity, and
ethnic harmony in San Antonio, folks, especially young people, may think
this is the way it has always been. Without COPS intervention back in the
early 70's, it is likely that the GGL or some other similar elitist
organization might still be holding a socio-political, and economic
monopoly in San Antonio. It is also highly likely that the dire economic
and political conditions of the Mexican-American community in San Antonio
might still be the same, or perhaps even worse, today as they were in the
60's.

San Antonio, was virtually turned upside down socially, economically and
politically. COPS indeed revolutionized San Antonio, and did so in a
relatively peaceful, and harmonious fashion. Some of COPS major
accomplishments are the following:

http://www.lared-latina.com/cops.htm

[The Reckoning]

so san antonio is vehicle oriented because of mexicans?

[Mark in Austin]

A couple things about rail in Austin:

1. What Austin has is NOT light rail. It is commuter rail. Light rail generally runs at least partially in street right of way (like Houston, Portland, etc), and provides a viable alternative to cars because it goes the same places as major roads. Commuter rail runs on existing rail lines that may or may not go anywhere near where people want to go (like UT, The Capital complex, or the airport).

2. Austin very narrowly voted down light rail about 10 years ago. The campaign was poorly planned and run, and the light rail plan, which was excellent and went to places people need to get to daily, was not rolled out until it was too late to build support and the anti-rail meme had already taken hold. Why an election when DFW and HOU didn't have elections to start their light rail systems? Because the state legislature loves to fuck with Austin and passed a special bill specifically targeting Austin's public transit agency forcing an election before any money can be spent on rail.

3. Several year later, as a "compromise" some of the anti-rail pols who were against light rail offered to support a vote retrofitting the existing freight line CapMetro already owned for commuter rail service. In the biggest mistake of it's existence, CapMetro decided to go along with this plan to get rail going in Austin, despite the evidence that it would fail (south Florida's Tri-Rail Commuter line also is a big failure ridership wise for the same reason - it doesn't go anywhere people need to go. Incidentally south Florida also has a successful light raill system.)

4. Despite the fact that Houston has some of the worst sprawl in the country and is a very decentralized city, Houston has one of the most successful light rail lines in the country. Why the success? They started with a small line but built it to connect areas that people actually travel back and forth to daily. Houston took the transit to where the people are, and it's doing great. Austin was forced into using a route nobody really uses and that doesn't connect to major employment / density centers. Of course it's their own damn fault for agreeing to it, but they were pretty much backed into a corner.

5. If light rail is planned with a modicum of intelligence and common sense (like Houston, Dallas, hell even Salt Lake City has a popular light rail system now) it would work in San Antonio. You have to look at WHY some systems succeed and WHY others fail before saying "it didn't work in Austin so it won't work in San Antonio."

[The Reckoning]

Infrastructure is always improved first in locations that have wealth. Is it fair? Perhaps not, but that's the way it is in almost every city.


The location of the AT&T center sucks ass. Oh well.


depends what kind of infrastructure youre talking about. a simple tactic city planners use to deal with ghettos (institutionalized) is run major roads and highways right through the commercial sectors of the ghetto, so theres an empty shell left over that creates a jobless ghetto. the city can then declare atrophy, purchase the land from the residents (for pennies on the dollar), move them into government housing or run them off, and build hospital complexes, government buildings and giant parks where the ghetto once was. happens all the time.

[Mark in Austin]

Yeah, it's pretty useless.

I'm a 10 minute walk from the Lakeline stop, and have still never used the rail. Particularly since I don't work downtown, and it doesn't run during any of the times that I would prefer to be going (evening/nights).



Even if you did work downtown I doubt you would use it because it lets people out at the convention center. Most of the employment downtown is so far away people have to transfer to busses to get to their buildings / final destinations. The transfer time makes the whole thing time neutral at best compared to driving. It's a system that will never be successful until there is a light rail component that connects (at a minimum) UT, the Capital complex, and the Airport to the system.

By the way, A 10 minute walk is about the maximum time the average person will walk to transit (and really 5-7 minutes is more ideal, especially in Texas heat) - the term used for for this radius around a transit stop is a pedestrian-shed (think watershed but with people instead of water). If you don't have a lot of sources/destinations for riders within that pedestrian shed you are not going to have good ridership.

[Mark in Austin]

Actually if I remember correctly the city and the Spurs had a deal but the Spurs are the ones who backed out and went with the county proposal instead. Yeah, fucking southside council members!

The Spurs only motivation was to go with the site that had the best odds of voter approval in an election to get funding. One aspect of the county proposal that hasn't been mentioned yet is that by going on county land, the election could be county-wide, not just in the city limits. Polling showed that including county voters increased the odds of the measure passing.

[DarrinS]

Or, maybe it's because shit is just very spread out here and doesn't lend itself to light rail.

[DarrinS]

Hell, Detroit has the "people mover" system, which is like a fucked up Disney ride through a post-apocalyptic world.

[boutons_deux]

Light rail is the silly little train in DFW, with the inane, non-stop announcements "

the doors are closing,

we are starting,

we are leaving the station,

we are arriving as the station,

we are stopping,

the doors are opening

repeat repeat repeat.

Are Americans that stupid?

Public transport in sunbelt surburbia ain't gonna happen for decades, if ever.

Now if gas were taxed to about $8/gallon, indexed to inflation, and the taxes used to pay for public transport, then we'd force people to use cars a lot less, and force a contraction of the suburbs back towards denser city centers. Plus high gas prices would push people away from carbon for fuel. Ain't gonna happen, the carbon energy industries own the political class.

[Jekka]

Hell, Detroit has the "people mover" system, which is like a fucked up Disney ride through a post-apocalyptic world.

Hey, the People Mover isn't all bad. I'd rather take the People Mover from Greektown to the Joe Louis Arena than walk at 10pm any day. Downtown parking in Detroit sucks ass.

[PakiDan]

You're so full of shit. San Antonio has historically fucked Hispanics when it comes to placement of roadways and infrastructure. 281 is an excellent example of that but really all you need to do is look at the street conditions in most parts of town and then look at who lives there.

The history of San Antonio city politics is quite amazing. Letting people in the north side elect the representation for the south side until 1977 is some fucked up shit.

And now because council members want to fight for projects in their district as they're supposed to you want to call them out on that? Yeah, if I lived in those districts I'd tell you to go fuck yourself.

BTW, the AT&T center is where it is because its on county ground. I don't remember why the city proposal didn't make it through but I SERIOUSLY doubt it was due to the south side and probably had more to do with northsiders not wanting to pay additional taxes.

Yes, but when you fight for projects in your district to the detriment of the rest of the city wouldn't you call that counter productive? 281? Are you serious? Would the 281 project better have served the southside? Is that what you are telling me? The 'give me' attitude makes me sick.

[PakiDan]

Of course 30 years later when the Southside has better representation and actually is getting universities and economic development like Toyota dumbfucks like Pakidan say they're just being dirty Mexicans.

I guess the moral of the story is dumb fucks will be dumb fucks.

You are so wise. Go cash your foodstamps and have a good dinner on me.

[MannyIsGod]

A couple things about rail in Austin:

1. What Austin has is NOT light rail. It is commuter rail. Light rail generally runs at least partially in street right of way (like Houston, Portland, etc), and provides a viable alternative to cars because it goes the same places as major roads. Commuter rail runs on existing rail lines that may or may not go anywhere near where people want to go (like UT, The Capital complex, or the airport).

2. Austin very narrowly voted down light rail about 10 years ago. The campaign was poorly planned and run, and the light rail plan, which was excellent and went to places people need to get to daily, was not rolled out until it was too late to build support and the anti-rail meme had already taken hold. Why an election when DFW and HOU didn't have elections to start their light rail systems? Because the state legislature loves to fuck with Austin and passed a special bill specifically targeting Austin's public transit agency forcing an election before any money can be spent on rail.

3. Several year later, as a "compromise" some of the anti-rail pols who were against light rail offered to support a vote retrofitting the existing freight line CapMetro already owned for commuter rail service. In the biggest mistake of it's existence, CapMetro decided to go along with this plan to get rail going in Austin, despite the evidence that it would fail (south Florida's Tri-Rail Commuter line also is a big failure ridership wise for the same reason - it doesn't go anywhere people need to go. Incidentally south Florida also has a successful light raill system.)

4. Despite the fact that Houston has some of the worst sprawl in the country and is a very decentralized city, Houston has one of the most successful light rail lines in the country. Why the success? They started with a small line but built it to connect areas that people actually travel back and forth to daily. Houston took the transit to where the people are, and it's doing great. Austin was forced into using a route nobody really uses and that doesn't connect to major employment / density centers. Of course it's their own damn fault for agreeing to it, but they were pretty much backed into a corner.

5. If light rail is planned with a modicum of intelligence and common sense (like Houston, Dallas, hell even Salt Lake City has a popular light rail system now) it would work in San Antonio. You have to look at WHY some systems succeed and WHY others fail before saying "it didn't work in Austin so it won't work in San Antonio."

Excellent post.

[MannyIsGod]

Yes, but when you fight for projects in your district to the detriment of the rest of the city wouldn't you call that counter productive? 281? Are you serious? Would the 281 project better have served the southside? Is that what you are telling me? The 'give me' attitude makes me sick.

Its not that the 281 project would have better served the south side, its about people with shitty representation having the route go though their neighborhood because it is what was good for others.

What fucking give me attitude are you talking about? People are entitled to fight using their representation and somehow that is pissing you off. There is nothing "give me" about that.

Your overall ignorance makes me sick. Somehow when people try to work the system its the worst thing in the world to you but nevermind that system is consistently worked by everyone else. Sure, the fact that a small group of white business owners ran the fuck out of the city up until 1980 and ran it to their benefit doesn't piss you off even though that same infrastructure that they built is still what everyone has to work with today.

You have a perception that as far as I know is backed up with no facts. You cited the ATT center as an example but of course you're wrong about why that is where it is. Until you provide some examples of what you're talking about then I can only surmise you're full of shit.

[MannyIsGod]

You are so wise. Go cash your foodstamps and have a good dinner on me.

HA. Sorry to disappoint you but the only money I get from the government is via student loans. I doubt your tax money is even covering what you take out of the system much less paying for others food stamps unless you're making far more than I give you credit for.

In any event, you've either equated wanting people to have equal representation to government assistance or you're equating being Mexican with government assistance. Judging by your comments in the first post I'm pretty sure I know which it is.

Must suck to hate yourself so much, Daniel. Must make you sick to look in the mirror and see that brown skin.

[Blake]

The Spurs only motivation was to go with the site that had the best odds of voter approval in an election to get funding. One aspect of the county proposal that hasn't been mentioned yet is that by going on county land, the election could be county-wide, not just in the city limits. Polling showed that including county voters increased the odds of the measure passing.

it was also easy to get voter approval by sticking the costs of the ATT Center on hotel taxes instead of raising city taxes to pay for an alamodome extension.

[PakiDan]

HA. Sorry to disappoint you but the only money I get from the government is via student loans. I doubt your tax money is even covering what you take out of the system much less paying for others food stamps unless you're making far more than I give you credit for.

In any event, you've either equated wanting people to have equal representation to government assistance or you're equating being Mexican with government assistance. Judging by your comments in the first post I'm pretty sure I know which it is.

Must suck to hate yourself so much, Daniel. Must make you sick to look in the mirror and see that brown skin.

:) I was equating it with liberalism... but I could see how you could infer that given my tone. Touche my friend.

[Mark in Austin]

I think City Council representation cuts both ways. Austin has no single member districts but there is a gentlemen's agreement that keeps several of the seats for minority council members. At first I thought this was a good thing - every council member should vote for what is best for the city as a whole. What has wound up happening though is that this has strengthened the power of central Austin neighborhood groups. As examples, they have successfully fought off every reasonable densification effort on a policy level as well as individual projects, and made it more difficult for venues to play live music (ironic for a city that claims to be the live music capital of the world).

I like the idea of a mix of at-large and single member districts to provide some balance between the two. It is something that is occasionally discussed here but I think it has lost steam recently.

[Mark in Austin]

Public transport in sunbelt surburbia ain't gonna happen for decades, if ever.

It's happening all over the sunbelt. Dallas. Houston. Phoenix. Salt Lake City. Atlanta. Charlotte.


Now if gas were taxed to about $8/gallon, indexed to inflation, and the taxes used to pay for public transport, then we'd force people to use cars a lot less,

Or you could design competent, convenient systems like Houstons that people naturally gravitate to right now.


and force a contraction of the suburbs back towards denser city centers.

Or you could let simple demographics do the heavy lifting. People are already moving into denser city centers, and the two biggest demographic groups are leading the charge: 1. Boomers and empty nesters looking to downsize and wanting the convenience of being able to walk to get a coffee or take care of other daily errands and, 2. Millennials, who in a larger proportion (and much larger total numbers) are not moving to the suburbs in the first place - the most common reason why: they hated growing up in the burbs themselves and have no interest in going back.

City center populations are increasing, gentrifying, and becoming wealthier. And virtually every city in America is or will be encouraging this trend for the simple fact that denser city centers are more efficient to provide services to, and with budgets stretched to the breaking point or already broken these efficiencies are too vital to the economic health of cities to ignore.

All this isn't to say that the suburbs will be no more. They will still exist. But they won't be as heavily subsidized, and the near exclusive monopoly the suburbs had on where people want to live is changing as quickly as the Boomers age and the Millenials start moving up the economic ladder.

[DeadlyDynasty]

If that is you in the photo and if those things are real-then you should never-ever have to walk anywhere.

and they say chivalry is dead...

[leemajors]

Even if you did work downtown I doubt you would use it because it lets people out at the convention center. Most of the employment downtown is so far away people have to transfer to busses to get to their buildings / final destinations. The transfer time makes the whole thing time neutral at best compared to driving. It's a system that will never be successful until there is a light rail component that connects (at a minimum) UT, the Capital complex, and the Airport to the system.

By the way, A 10 minute walk is about the maximum time the average person will walk to transit (and really 5-7 minutes is more ideal, especially in Texas heat) - the term used for for this radius around a transit stop is a pedestrian-shed (think watershed but with people instead of water). If you don't have a lot of sources/destinations for riders within that pedestrian shed you are not going to have good ridership.

I would use it occasionally if you could use it to get to east 6th occasionally on weekend nights, but it's not for that purpose, which I can't understand. Pay someone to clean out the puke early in the morning and you instantly double the amount of people riding it weekly, and maybe even convince some restaurants and food carts to move into those stations.

[BlairForceDejuan]

Now if gas were taxed to about $8/gallon, indexed to inflation, and the taxes used to pay for public transport, then we'd force people to use cars a lot less, and force a contraction of the suburbs back towards denser city centers. Plus high gas prices would push people away from carbon for fuel. Ain't gonna happen, the carbon energy industries own the political class.

:rollin

Tears you up inside doesn't it.

[desflood]

Now if gas were taxed to about $8/gallon, indexed to inflation, and the taxes used to pay for public transport, then we'd force people to use cars a lot less, and force a contraction of the suburbs back towards denser city centers. Plus high gas prices would push people away from carbon for fuel. Ain't gonna happen, the carbon energy industries own the political class.
Manipulate public perceptions and actions through taxation to force people to alter their lifestyles? Am I reading this correctly, that you're now advocating what you've railed against for so long?

[MannyIsGod]

Well, there is an argument that gas is undertaxed. Personally I feel, every dollar of military expense in the middle east should be passed on via gas. Thats nothing more than paying for what you use.

[CosmicCowboy]

It's the damned southside city council members who kill any progressive initiative introduced in city council. They cry about any project not taking place in their districts and keep us from moving forward like a city our size should. Look at the poor decision for the placement of the AT&T Center.... brought to you by your backwards council members! As long as San Antonio keeps electing these diabetic Mexican fuckers with the poor me, handout attitude then we are going to continue to have the development prowess of a Mexican border city. Fuck the south side!

Whats wrong with the location of the ATT center?

[coyotes_geek]

Well, there is an argument that gas is undertaxed. Personally I feel, every dollar of military expense in the middle east should be passed on via gas. Thats nothing more than paying for what you use.

You don't even need to go that far to make the arguement. Gas taxes fund our roads and in Texas the combination of increasing traffic, increased fuel efficiency and a stagnant gas tax rate has left the state without adequate funding to keep up with demand. Personally, I think the state gas tax rate needs to be doubled with half the proceeds going to fund new road projects and half going to help fund transit projects.

[boutons_deux]

I'd rather the tax from reduced fuel stay in USA rather than export 100s of $Bs to VZ, BR, and Muslim Middle East. But Repugs would rather starve the US govt beast while gorging the Middle East countries with our treasure. Fucking stupid, but that's Repugs for ya.

American love to sound bad and tough assed and say There Ain't No Free Lunch, while expecting everything to be painless and cheap.

[Dex]

By the way, A 10 minute walk is about the maximum time the average person will walk to transit (and really 5-7 minutes is more ideal, especially in Texas heat) - the term used for for this radius around a transit stop is a pedestrian-shed (think watershed but with people instead of water). If you don't have a lot of sources/destinations for riders within that pedestrian shed you are not going to have good ridership.

Makes sense. If that's the case then they built the Lakeline stop at a ridiculous location. It's located on a long stretch of back road with no other businesses nearby. There is a shopping center about a mile to the north, and my apartments are about a mile to the south, and those are the closest things.

Like you said, if you took the train to the Lakeline stop, you'd still need to hop a bus to get to Lakeline Mall.

[DarkReign]

Hey, the People Mover isn't all bad. I'd rather take the People Mover from Greektown to the Joe Louis Arena than walk at 10pm any day. Downtown parking in Detroit sucks ass.

Truth. The People Mover is a laughable, utterly pathetic mode of transit, but it sure as hell beats walking from the limited locations it does service.

BTW, a LightRail project has been confirmed for downtown Detroit. Will run from downtown to 8 mile road along (iirc) Woodward Avenue. Hopefully, its just a very meager start.

[byrontx]

Real Estate people run the local government. Sprawl benefits the real estate market churning relatively cheap agriculture land into high-dollar lots. Taxpayers provide the infrastructure for the sprawl so that real estate investors make money off your tax money and some of that money is re-channeled to back real estate-friendly policies and politicians.
The only solution is initiatives that limit the spread of infrastructure-and there will be a lot of screaming and gnashing of teeth. Once you have stopped the sprawl the market will turn towards brown-field development which benefits the community and makes other forms of transit possible.

[Nathan Explosion]

First off, isn't there a Amtrak line that goes from Austin to SA and back every day? I'm sure it runs more than once a day. Passes by my store everyday.

Second, the one idea that was being tossed around on lightrail was to have the train go to major Park & Ride/Transit Centers. The light rail would hit major parts of the city, but for anything heading out towards 1604, you take the train, then catch a bus the rest of the way.

For as large as San Antonio is, this seems like a cost effective method for those commuting from outside 1604 into the city.

As for a grocery store downtown, most of the people who live or work downtown end up in my store, off of Hildebrand and San Pedro. I just don't see a place where it's feasible to build a 60,000 sq ft grocery store. Not to mention that HEB likes to own the land that they build their stores on. A good chunk (I've actually heard more than half) of HEB's profits are from real estate, not the stores themselves.

[MannyIsGod]

Your store is the one off San Pedro north of Monte Vista? Your store fucking blows. The produce there was always gross as hell when I lived in Monte Vista. Get your shit in order, imo.

[phxspurfan]

Having done ISM in high school with a mentor in SA City Planning, I think I can say this:

The city of SA is not surrounded by any natural barriers to expansion. Thus, developers who respond to the growing consumer market in SA can buy up land in greater size rings around the city to build out more retail and residential areas. More development on cheap land = more profit potential in a growing city.

The concept of urban sprawl has been around for a long, long time and is due to a number of factors including district politics (like you guys have mentioned), property taxes and values, and natural barriers to expansion. The whole concept of urban planning is to define ways to bring communities together with common areas (like a downtown) to prevent natural socioeconomic separation and promote unity in our cities. Things like parks and nice downtowns also make cities more appealing, and thus the concept can indirectly lead to greater tax revenue.

The problem is, with no barriers on any side of SA, the city will naturally expand with the population size, until a super-city is created which annexes the surrounding towns. In order to prevent this, the voters need to be educated about the dangers of this possibility (listed above) and the "old boy" system of electing council members needs to be fought to prevent the developers from being in everyone of influence's pockets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_sprawl

Some reading for this (a gift given to me by my old mentor):

The Death and Life of Great American Cities - Jane Jacobs
http://www.amazon.com/Death-Life-Great-American-Cities/dp/067974195X

[TDMVPDPOY]

it all comes down to costs and funding of a project and the sort of revenue it can make....

then again why not connect the rail to the airport and to the downtown area....

[Nathan Explosion]

Your store is the one off San Pedro north of Monte Vista? Your store fucking blows. The produce there was always gross as hell when I lived in Monte Vista. Get your shit in order, imo.

I don't work produce.

[MannyIsGod]

I don't work produce.

Then tell the fuckers who do to get that shit under control. TBH the fish and meat always looked like ass too though. Made it a lot easier to just go to Central Market since it was almost as close. Your HEB made me go to gucci HEB a lot.

[Nathan Explosion]

Then tell the fuckers who do to get that shit under control. TBH the fish and meat always looked like ass too though. Made it a lot easier to just go to Central Market since it was almost as close. Your HEB made me go to gucci HEB a lot.

That's nice. Don't really care as I'm looking to transfer because it's just my time to move on. If you have anything to say about the Receiving area, then we can talk. Of course if you walk into my department I'll probably just tell you I'll find the person to help you and then tell you to wait outside.

But if you must know, I keep my department running like a Swiss watch. :)

[Nathan Explosion]

Oh and I wouldn't eat the fish. But then again, I don't like fish so I'd never eat the fish. Make of that what you will.

[RGMCSE]

there are no light rail options.

the via buses are shit. always late and takes way too much time to be feasible.

everything in san antonio requires that you drive to it.

why is nothing here "walkable"?

is this why san antonio is fat or is san antonio too fat to even consider walking?


Cause this is Texas Bitch! Not New Yok.



Rob

[Mark in Austin]

The city of SA is not surrounded by any natural barriers to expansion. Thus, developers who respond to the growing consumer market in SA can buy up land in greater size rings around the city to build out more retail and residential areas. More development on cheap land = more profit potential in a growing city.



Development always has the potential to be profitable. The problem with sprawl is that a great deal of it is subsidized by public infrastructure, "public-private" partnerships that are partnerships in name only, etc. If projects truly had to pay their own way in terms of infrastructure costs and city service costs, you would see more density because it would be an economic necessity for the projects to make money; even on "cheap land".

Not saying all sprawl would disappear. But there would be considerably less.

[MannyIsGod]

Development always has the potential to be profitable. The problem with sprawl is that a great deal of it is subsidized by public infrastructure, "public-private" partnerships that are partnerships in name only, etc. If projects truly had to pay their own way in terms of infrastructure costs and city service costs, you would see more density because it would be an economic necessity for the projects to make money; even on "cheap land".

Not saying all sprawl would disappear. But there would be considerably less.

This is an excellent point. You've had some great posts on the subject, Mark.

[phxspurfan]

Development always has the potential to be profitable. The problem with sprawl is that a great deal of it is subsidized by public infrastructure, "public-private" partnerships that are partnerships in name only, etc. If projects truly had to pay their own way in terms of infrastructure costs and city service costs, you would see more density because it would be an economic necessity for the projects to make money; even on "cheap land".

Not saying all sprawl would disappear. But there would be considerably less.

Agreed, but what would make increasing density and revitalizing urban, inner-city areas cost efficient? Rebuilding, re-zoning and revitalizing all have costs that are arguably greater than those associated with expansion into the hill country. Not to mention that expansion has the potential to increase city limits, thereby increasing jurisdictions, taxable areas and government funding.

I'm not arguing on the side of old boy city council members, just asking if anyone sees a solution in this space. Because I don't see one that's easy to implement. Meanwhile, I heard of neighborhoods in SA that didn't even have running water.

[Mark in Austin]

Agreed, but what would make increasing density and revitalizing urban, inner-city areas cost efficient? Rebuilding, re-zoning and revitalizing all have costs that are arguably greater than those associated with expansion into the hill country.

I suppose you could argue it if you like, but there are several things to consider:

1. The very concept that "building new" is somehow cheaper than "reusing" is warped by a couple things: As I mentioned, a lot of "new" development has been subsidized by taxpayer infrastructure like roads, utility lines, water and sewer treatment plants, schools, etc. And these costs are rarely passed on to the developers and in turn, the end users in full. If you are a developer and your only choices are between developing a tract of land that already has roads, sewer, water, etc or developing a tract of land where YOU have to put in all those things, which one are you going to chose?

2. It's not about revitalizing inner city areas - in many urban centers this is already happening. In many cases, especially in sunbelt cities, it's about revitalizing the first ring of suburbs that are now in decay (for instance the area around what used to be Windsor Park Mall, now Rackspace). That was a solidly middle class area that has steadily lost ground as growth accelerated into the far north side.

3. It's actually not even about just building new vs. reusing. It's about how you build no matter where you are. One of the best videos I've seen on building walkable places is about Atlanta (which is a city like San Antonio that has no natural boundaries) and the development of the Glenwood Park neighborhood: (skip to the 4:00 mark if you want to get to the main point)

XoVXoB6x3vM

The neighborhood in the video was built on "re-used" land, but was built in a very specific way to allow pedestrian activity and walkability. This is by no means exclusive to rebuilding projects though. Check out the aerial photos here. (http://www.newtownatstcharles.com/AerialPhotos.aspx) The photos are of the New Town at St Charles, just outside of St. Louis. It was built on "new" land and has been the fastest growing / selling neighborhood in the region.



Not to mention that expansion has the potential to increase city limits, thereby increasing jurisdictions, taxable areas and government funding.

Any serious city official will say that sprawl is the LEAST efficient way to increase city income, because of the incredibly high cost per person to develop and service compared to more dense development. For example, in Austin at this point all the downtown property taxes paid by people in condos and denser neighborhoods are not only paying for their own city services, but are actually subsidizing the services for the suburbs. Without the denser areas, there is no way the city could have maintained a (more or less) balanced budget over the past 15 years of explosive growth.


I'm not arguing on the side of old boy city council members, just asking if anyone sees a solution in this space.

Yes. One of the answers is here. (http://www.cnu.org/Intro_to_new_urbanism) A development pattern that incorporates the ideas of walkability, mixed uses, parks, and sustainability. It's not the only answer, or necessarily for every situation, but it is one that I know works.


Because I don't see one that's easy to implement.

You're absolutely right - growth isn't easy. Neither is heart surgery, rebuilding an engine, being a great teacher, or being a good parent. But like everything else that we do that we want to do well, we work hard at it. And there are professionals out there that are trained to help us if it is something we can't or don't want to do ourselves.