Reply With Quote
, 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.
bull ! no way in over 1/3 of drivers would be off the streets riding this train...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.
The sad thing is I knew the general content of your post before opening this thread again.
manny, you've never been out of west side so STFU!
but seriously... 1/3 of all drivers off the highway? very unrealistic...
and i haven't just been to many places..i've lived there... got a feel for them... unlike you who just posts bull you've read in between jack off sessions...
The sad thing is I knew the general content of your post before opening this thread again.
Must be general knowledge you gain when you enter European airspace.
I was just anming examples. Better and more expanded local bus service might be a better choice. Carpool incentives is another option.Dude, we don't need a subway system. What the ?
Smaller scale transportation system?
What the ?
You know Via isin the process of growing right?
Chris, are you being serious?
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?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.
Train Tunnel VisionTunnel Vision
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?BTW, students rarely pay anything near full fare for mass transit. Just a bit of info.
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.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.
You seem to have a holier than thou at ude 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.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
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.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'm for examining frieght traffic in the area first.Or, you could remove commuter traffic. See, Tunnel Vision.
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.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.
Cool!
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.Chris, don't you think they take that all into account when they conduct these studies?
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.And whether or not you "propose" it or not, something will have to be done, if not both
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.Btw, I never called you a moron bub, you did that on your own.
So what about the $608 million? Where will this money come from?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.
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...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.
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.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.
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?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.
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.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.
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)?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 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?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,
Check this out....
So, again I ask, who is going to pay for this? That is major concern for me.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.
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..
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...&type=businessFederal 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.
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..
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.
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.
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 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?
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.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?
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.
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.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.
Less qualified? No. Less important? Yes. And you may not agree with me, but representatives don't listen to cons uants who don't speak up or make themselves heard in some manner.You seem to have a holier than thou at ude 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.
I'm not taking a holier than thou at ude. I'm pointing out that the old addage about the squeaky wheel getting the grease holds very true.
That's funny, have you seen the reasearch, or have you seen a few short articles?The research does not totally support either case clearly.
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.
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.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...
A side benefit that happens to be a major issue at the time.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.
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 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....
That remains to be seen.So, again I ask, who is going to pay for this? That is major concern for me.
I'm reading the report right now, I'll post some stuff from it in a bit.
ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-...r/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.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 Corridors
transportation capacity using available railroad
rights-of-way.
The other items considered along with a rail line. Notice the HOV lanes and Toll alternatives as well.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.
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.Financing:
Construction: Federal - 50%
Regional - 50% (0.11’ tax)
Operations & Maintenance:
Passenger fares - 55%
Federal - 10%
Regional - 35% (0.015’ tax)
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
All of those questions and more are answered in the link provied above. Feel free to read the study.
No, I am saying I don't want anything more than a local system to be looked at.
Ok, so we need more buses to use the rail system? Is that included in the estimated costs? How does that effect pollution?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 quan y. Quan y 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.
Okay I read it, where does it answer my questions?
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.
That Study alone is over 100 pages, you already read it?
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.
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.
And that's not the State's job. TexDOT reviews issues on a statewide basis.
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.Ok, so we need more buses to use the rail system? Is that included in the estimated costs? How does that effect pollution?
Railways are not as cheap and efficent as using trucks to move freight. It's simply too expensive. Not going to happen.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.
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.That doesn't mean you don't find solutions on lowering the amount of other traffic.
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.
They are estimates, but they are sound ones.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.
Well, isnt' anything untill actual implamentation?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.
A subway for San Antonio is not in the cards, nor is it nessecary.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.
I posted quotes straight from TexDOT's own report.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.
The traffic situation has already been taken into account. 18 lanes, 9 each way, will be needed. Not going to happen.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.
Yes, but without it you have a much larger amount of traffic don't you?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 quan y. Quan y 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Chris, they are taking a look at a future problem and this is the solution that comes up time and time again.
Doing nothing is considered in each one of the studies, along with other options such as: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. [B]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[/B].
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.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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
