Tunnel Vision
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...
exactly! that is why extra highway lanes are needed!
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
Any research to back this up?
Hurry, cause I'm holding my breath!
yes, i've been there many times... read my above post as to why it makes sense for them and not us...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
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.
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...
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?
Or, you could remove commuter traffic. See, Tunnel Vision.
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.
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.
i said parking AND TRAFFIC... i have family that has lived there since '92... the use the metro bc of the costs associated with parking and traffic...
You guys are en led 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.
Clan, I'm talking INTERCITY (Baltimore - DC being my main example) communting, not INTRACITY.
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.
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?
Manny, shut the up!!! I read the ing articles, so don't come back with, "You are a ing 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.
Manny, shut the up!!!You have a very poor delivery in speaking and discussing issues with people because you come off as insulting and demeaning.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
It's an either or on the costs. And after all the derailments, building new tracks is something they want do do either wayFull 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.
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.”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 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 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 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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
