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 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.
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.
150 million for that much railIt 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.
You're so full of . San Antonio has historically ed 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 ed up .
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 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.
Its funny that it stops at Highland Mall. It's the Westlakes of Austin Malls
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, ing southside council members!
So the Austin light rail doesn't even connect to UT?
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.
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.
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.
Thats incredibly ing 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 re ed, of course.
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 about San Antonio's arena.
I thought the option was always to put it in the parking lot though.
I guess I can somewhat understand that sentiment but I still think ignoring UT is just such a stupid move.
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.
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.It looks like an overly ambitious start - it's a 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 system is off to a good start. What Houston is doing is what Austin should have done. It's all about implementation.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.
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.
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 being said, commuter rail between San Antonio and Austin should have happened a long time ago.
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.
That seems to be the biggest hurdle for light rail in almost all situations. Right of way battles are a .
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/...s/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.
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.
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.
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.
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 s.
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 guess the moment gas hits 4 bucks again or w/e then people will not care so much about the sweaty s 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.
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.?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote