Why no "San Antonio/Austin light rail or bullet train yet? (Houston: sales, to buy)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I can no longer find the information for the future light rail lines. I do know I once saw this information somewhere.
Maybe it was being planned, and is being re-considered.
Normally I am a fan of light rail, and personally I would love to see a fast train to San Antonio.
However, my priority would be a mass transit system that puts the priority on offering transportation, within the city (and close suburbs), to as many people as possible.
When promoting light rail becomes more important than providing transportation to more people, it loses its attraction (at least to me).
Do people know that they are completely removing bus service to some areas, so that other areas (who already have service) can have more frequent service. The reason stated is that they feel this will bring more riders to light rail.
This is not about replacing people's bus service with light rail. This is about completely eliminating service to some, to offer more service to others, in hopes that the others will find light rail more attractive (since the bus will get them to the station 2x as often). Other neighborhoods will no longer have any service (meaning they can not use public transit to get to the light rail station).
If this is the trade off, then I am against Light Rail.
To San Antonio, a bus might make more sense. (Ideally it would be a bus that was highly energy efficient, that used bio fuel).
At least with a bus, the upfront cost is not as high, and if it gets cancelled due to low ridership, not as much is lost (the bus can be deployed elsewhere).
But then since I would not be using this service during peak times, I could be over looking the effects of traffic on speed.
The only thing missing are tax payers willing to pay for a service that is NOT in demand. Capital Metro currently can't afford to run what limited system it has here in Austin. If there wasn't enough demand to keep the existing Amtrak route open from Austin to SA, how could it possibly pay for light rail?
If you did take a light rail trip to any of these cities, then what, you'd be there on foot having to depend on the hugely inefficient and inadequate mass transit systems we have in Texas cities, or the excessively expensive taxi's. You could rent a car, but then why not just drive to begin with, it would be a lot cheaper?
These realities are why there is no demand for it.
Inner-city travel and city-to-city travel are two different animals. And you're getting light rail confused with heavy rail/high speed rail. High speed rail is where it's at for longer distance travel. (And we don't have light rail in Austin - Capital MetroRail is not light rail, METRORail in Houston is true light rail, but I digress.)
My theory goes like this: who travels between major cities in Texas? I'm thinking of two groups - business travelers attending meetings and personal travelers visiting friends/family. Not surprisingly, I fit the bill in both these categories.
For business travelers, time is important. When your billable rate is $100+/hr, an extra hour on the road will cost way more than any cab ride to/from the rail station and your meeting destination. I travel frequently to Houston and other cities for meetings during the week. I try to schedule multiple meetings to make the trips worth it, but I usually end up working remotely for the rest of the day and then traveling back home in the evening, which just plain sucks. Flying is expensive and airports are time consuming for a one-day trip. And you can't really get much work done while driving/flying.
For personal travelers visiting friends/family, do you really even need your own car at your destination? I, again, visit Houston a lot on weekends to see friends/family, and I typically just end up with my vehicle parked in the driveway all weekend.
For a family visiting Dallas or San Antonio or whatever for the weekend just to get away and have some fun, rail service probably wouldn't be much better than driving. But it could be if hotels and destinations (theme parks, malls, etc) provided free shuttles to the city's rail station (much like they do for airports).
High speed rail between the Texas metros is probably a lot more reasonable and useful than you'd think. It obviously wouldn't be for everyone and a comprehensive study would need to be done to ensure sufficient demand, but I think it's worth considering.
Ya, I know. They are in the process, though, of developing some cheaper rail sections - maybe $10M instead of $40-60M for the maglev rail only. But no matter what it'd be enormously expensive. So would any high speed rail. (By comparison, SH130 costs about $35M per mile turnkey.)
But...what isn't enormously expensive these days? Our state and country can't sustain its infrastructure with a Wal-Mart mentality forever.
I estimate about a 700 mile triangle between the 4 major metropolitan areas in Texas. At an estimated cost of $120M per mile, that would total $84B. Considering an investment of this magnitude would take place over multiple decades, the only thing missing is the political will.
Speaking of transportation funding, Texas is ass-backwards to begin with. Here's a nice little concise summary: Candor needed on TxDOT funds
Edit: To give a little more perspective, a "triangular" route through Austin, San Antonio, Houston, and DFW would put more than 17M Texans within about 90 minutes of each other. How cool is that?
You're right they don't need $84B up front. But they need the commitment for it. No matter how you pace the need for the funding - it is a gigantic amount of money.
FWIW - I think San Antonio should not be a high priority destination for rail. Houston-Dallas has a far greater quantity of business travelers - who are the primary weekday travelers.
Inner-city travel and city-to-city travel are two different animals. And you're getting light rail confused with heavy rail/high speed rail. High speed rail is where it's at for longer distance travel. (And we don't have light rail in Austin - Capital MetroRail is not light rail, METRORail in Houston is true light rail, but I digress.)
My theory goes like this: who travels between major cities in Texas? I'm thinking of two groups - business travelers attending meetings and personal travelers visiting friends/family. Not surprisingly, I fit the bill in both these categories.
For business travelers, time is important. When your billable rate is $100+/hr, an extra hour on the road will cost way more than any cab ride to/from the rail station and your meeting destination. I travel frequently to Houston and other cities for meetings during the week. I try to schedule multiple meetings to make the trips worth it, but I usually end up working remotely for the rest of the day and then traveling back home in the evening, which just plain sucks. Flying is expensive and airports are time consuming for a one-day trip. And you can't really get much work done while driving/flying.
For personal travelers visiting friends/family, do you really even need your own car at your destination? I, again, visit Houston a lot on weekends to see friends/family, and I typically just end up with my vehicle parked in the driveway all weekend.
For a family visiting Dallas or San Antonio or whatever for the weekend just to get away and have some fun, rail service probably wouldn't be much better than driving. But it could be if hotels and destinations (theme parks, malls, etc) provided free shuttles to the city's rail station (much like they do for airports).
High speed rail between the Texas metros is probably a lot more reasonable and useful than you'd think. It obviously wouldn't be for everyone and a comprehensive study would need to be done to ensure sufficient demand, but I think it's worth considering.
I think it would end up being just like the current Capital Metro system where the majority of the tax payers, most of who do not use the service, pay 88% of the budget to subsidize the few riders who use it, while the riders pay only 4% of the budget in fares.
People need to learn to hold their meetings by teleconferencing, I have done my share of business travel and it was usually a huge waste of time and money for a little bit of face time with clients and consultants.
I can no longer find the information for the future light rail lines. I do know I once saw this information somewhere.
Maybe it was being planned, and is being re-considered.
Normally I am a fan of light rail, and personally I would love to see a fast train to San Antonio.
However, my priority would be a mass transit system that puts the priority on offering transportation, within the city (and close suburbs), to as many people as possible.
When promoting light rail becomes more important than providing transportation to more people, it loses its attraction (at least to me).
Do people know that they are completely removing bus service to some areas, so that other areas (who already have service) can have more frequent service. The reason stated is that they feel this will bring more riders to light rail.
This is not about replacing people's bus service with light rail. This is about completely eliminating service to some, to offer more service to others, in hopes that the others will find light rail more attractive (since the bus will get them to the station 2x as often). Other neighborhoods will no longer have any service (meaning they can not use public transit to get to the light rail station).
If this is the trade off, then I am against Light Rail.
To San Antonio, a bus might make more sense. (Ideally it would be a bus that was highly energy efficient, that used bio fuel).
At least with a bus, the upfront cost is not as high, and if it gets cancelled due to low ridership, not as much is lost (the bus can be deployed elsewhere).
But then since I would not be using this service during peak times, I could be over looking the effects of traffic on speed.
There should be a happy medium somewhere...if they made a spur, it would really be a showcase of what could and should be possible, per alternative transit options..but most of all, it would be part of a loop spur connecting the major Texas metros..Texas is awesome in being in the forefront of so many things...I would love for them to be in the forefront with alternatives like this as well...BTW, this is currently the greatest state in the US, hands down....lets make it a harbinger of things to come to boot!(no pun intended with the boot remark!)
I think it would end up being just like the current Capital Metro system where the majority of the tax payers, most of who do not use the service, pay 88% of the budget to subsidize the few riders who use it, while the riders pay only 4% of the budget in fares.
People need to learn to hold their meetings by teleconferencing, I have done my share of business travel and it was usually a huge waste of time and money for a little bit of face time with clients and consultants.
1. Capital Metro is a terrible transit authority. They're just awful.
2. If we followed a rule that no one should be made to "subsidize" public services they don't use as much as others, this nation would fall apart (and I'd say most if not all nations would fall apart).
3. The success of teleconferencing depends on the business. I do plenty of teleconferencing, but in my industry + many others, you sort of have to be there to be productive. Like high speed rail, teleconferencing isn't for everyone.
That Leander light rail was also at the mercy of freight....prob part of the reason it never fully got off the ground....prob why we would need our own mag-lev type overhead tracks...why can't Austin have a giant one circling the entire metro? That would be great if we could be the first city to do that!
I think it would end up being just like the current Capital Metro system where the majority of the tax payers, most of who do not use the service, pay 88% of the budget to subsidize the few riders who use it, while the riders pay only 4% of the budget in fares.
People need to learn to hold their meetings by teleconferencing, I have done my share of business travel and it was usually a huge waste of time and money for a little bit of face time with clients and consultants.
And people who do not use personal vehicles subsidize the infrastructure which supports them (Not all of it has been paid for with gas tax, other taxes often have in the past, and still do, subsidize vehicle supporting infrastructure).
There is also the costs to the future (resource depletion, pollution, etc ...)
Well done mass transit would decrease these costs, per rider (poorly done mass transit may not).
Since Capital Metro is doing such a poor job, why not fire them all and hire new people to design a system?
I have used transit systems in multiple cities, and this one is the worst.
Usually I prefer teleconferencing (less personal).
But every so often I just want to be able to move an object or draw something (not easy with a drawing tool online) to communicate a concept.
Sometimes I want to throw something at someone or give one specific individual a visual signal.
I also liked getting the miles on my mileage plan.
2. If we followed a rule that no one should be made to "subsidize" public services they don't use as much as others, this nation would fall apart (and I'd say most if not all nations would fall apart).
If I were not required to pay taxes that subsidize what I do not use; I am certain that I would save more than enough in taxes to buy a very nice hybrid vehicle and hire a driver to take me anywhere I now go by bus.
Hire Disney to design a good Transit system for Austin (and surrounding areas).
Disney is very good at logistics, related to moving people.
I remember being a kid, and visiting DisneyLand, and my Dad pointing out how good Disney was at moving people in an efficient orderly manner.
They still seem to be leaders in this area.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
