Future Travel: High Speed Trains and Toll Roads - The Rivard Report

Future Travel: High Speed Trains and Toll Roads - The Rivard Report

By the year 2020, people in downtown San Antonio and Austin will be
boarding the high speed LSTAR train for the 75-minute intercity ride
instead of sitting in cars and trucks fighting traffic on a
heavily-congested I-35 expressway.


The annual body count of 100 traffic fatalities along I-35 between
the two cities will drop as will the 9,000 accidents that occur in the
same space each year.


Dozens of freight trains each day will be rerouted to an Eastern
bypass spur, where they will run at 79 mph versus the 20-plus miles an
hour they now average.

The increased efficiency will make train freight more economical and
greatly reduce truck congestion on the interstate. Reduced traffic and
congestion should reduce carbon emissions. The new route will redirect
dozens of trains that now carry cargo, some of it hazardous, each day
through the heart of San Antonio and other urban areas.

The improved direct rails will be reserved for fast passenger trains.
Students in downtown San Marcos, shoppers at the outlet malls, and
tubers and Wurstfest lovers in New Braunfels will hop the 90-minute
“local.” Together, the express and locals will total 32 daily round
trips from San Antonio to Georgetown. The service will be especially
attractive to the 300,000 students and teachers at the 16 colleges and
universities along the “education corridor.”

Estimated cost: $1.8 billion just to build it.

Not everyone will be commuting in trains. San Antonio’s suburban
dwellers willing to carpool or pay tolls while commuting to and from
Stone Oak and points north to the Alamo Quarry Market area and inner
city jobs. They’ll travel on a widened Tx. 281, speeding along
designated “managed lanes” while other drivers hold to the free lanes.

Estimated cost: $458 million just to build it.

“Before” photo and “after” rendering of what Tx. 281 from www.411on281.com.

State transportation planners, meanwhile, expect to be farther along
with their own massive project to establish high speed rail from the
Dallas-Fort Worth area north to Oklahoma and south to San Antonio, with
eventual spurs extending to Corpus Christi, Laredo and across the border
to Monterrey on rails built for where Mexico’s anticipated high speed
trains.

Estimated cost: Not available.

Those three transportation scenarios were presented as future realities by three different entities to the Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, the regional transportation authority, at its well-attended Monday meeting.

The three presentations were impressive in scope and detail and cost.
As one presenter told MPO board members, “We are here today to help you
visualize.”

See a comprehensive animation of the future Tx. 281 improvements at www.411on281.com.

“Visualization is one thing, realization is another,” quipped MPO
chairman Ray Lopez, who is the City of San Antonio’s board
representative and District 6 City Councilman. Lopez is one of several
council members who has signaled his intention to seek the mayor’s
office if Mayor Julián Castro is nominated by President Obama to become
the next becomes Secretary of Housing & Urban Development as
expected.

Lopez was, perhaps, dampening expectations after a lot of
presentation pizzazz by rightfully noting that the rail projects lack
funding, while the toll road project will require the Alamo Regional
Mobility Authority to borrow at least $230 million, which it will repay
with toll collections.

You can view all three presentations by clicking on the links below:

• The Lone Star Rail presentation by the Lone Star Rail District
• The Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail presentation by the Texas Department of Transportation
• The Tx. 281 presentation by the Alamo RMA

No one can say state, regional and local transportation authorities
are failing to plan for a future integrated mass transit system, but no
one can say where the funding will come from, either, except to say it
will require federal, state, local and private sector funding and
massive loan guarantees to make it happen.

*Featured/top image: HIgh speed light rail in Zurich. Photo by Flickr user Matthew Black.

Rideshare and Lone Star Rail Courting City Council

Rideshare and Lone Star Rail Courting City Council

A rideshare pilot program that would allow transportation network
companies (TNCs) Uber and Lyft to operate in San Antonio is currently
being developed by City and TNC officials. Members of both teams are
optimistic that a deal will be reached and voted on by City Council this
summer, but questions about background check legitimacy still loom over
the process.

Meanwhile, the Lone Star Rail District (LSRD) is also preparing to go before City Council some time in September to seek financial backing for the commuter rail line and freight rail relocation
between San Antonio and Austin. The biggest obstacle for the $2-3
billion LSRD projects is just that – funding – and so far, San Antonio
is one of the last major cities along the proposed route that has not
made an agreement to contribute to the cost.

As SA Tomorrow, the city’s massive long-term planning initiative, is collecting public input for its Multimodal Transportation Plan, San
Antonio is abuzz with talk of transportation from high-speed mass
transit to bicycle infrastructure as the city attempts to plan for and
estimated influx of 1 million new residents by 2040.

SA Next attendees enjoy Alamo Beer and other refreshments before the event. Photo by Iris Dimmick.

Build San Antonio Green (BSAG), as part of its new urbanism event series SA Next, brought Uber San Antonio General Manager Henry Carr, LSRD Rail Director Joseph Black, and Bike World
Manager Eddie Martinez together Thursday night to discuss their
respective modes of transportation and how they will, ultimately, play
parts in San Antonio’s transportation strategy.

City to Discuss Rideshare Pilot on Aug. 13

The event space at Geekdom erupted
with applause when Carr said he was glad to be back in town. Rideshare
companies ceased operations in San Antonio when a new ordinance went
into effect in April that Uber and Lyft representatives said were too
onerous to comply with. Uber’s ride-hailing mobile application has since
been activated in suburban cities like Windcrest, Alamo Heights, Olmos
Park, and Hollywood Park. Lyft’s app is closed in all of Bexar County.

“We’re working hard to figure out a deal,” Carr said after his
presentation. “We’re helping (Mayor Ivy Taylor) as much as we can.”

In June, Mayor Taylor asked
City Manager Sheryl Sculley, staff, and Councilmember Roberto Treviño
to develop the framework for operating agreements that would allow TNCs
to operate for a pilot period.

The main hang up in current negotiations is the issue of background
checks. The City officials, including the San Antonio Police Department,
want fingerprint background checks performed before a driver, who drive
their personal vehicles, picks up a fare. Uber and Lyft representatives
say that those would be redundant to their own third-party background
checks.

“Uber’s smartphone app already includes safety features that protect
riders and driver partners before, during and after a trip in ways that
others cannot,” Uber spokesperson Debbee Hancock stated in an email.

As a compromise, Uber confirmed that the City has proposed that
drivers have the option of taking the City’s background check and be
rewarded with recognition of this extra check on their profile for
riders to see. Hancock said Uber would not accept such an agreement.

“We have made a lot of progress in our discussions with the city, but
this is one proposal we cannot accept because it will do nothing to
enhance public safety. We are hopeful we can finalize an agreement in
the near future that incorporates all the other safety initiatives we
have developed with the city,” she stated.

However, talks have not broken down.

“The bottom line is they want to be here and we want them here,”
Treviño said. While he declined to comment on negotiation details, he
was confident that an agreement will be made soon.”We’re working within
the framework to find something fair for all rideshare companies (not
just Uber).”

Lone Star Rail District to Get Council Consideration in September

LSRD Rail Director Joseph Black talks about the $2-3 billion commuter rail project. Photo by Iris Dimmick.

While there is little opposition to the idea of a commuter rail line
(the LSTAR) between San Antonio and Austin, the City takes serious pause
when confronted with the yearly costs of operation and maintenance.

But there are no tax or fee increases on the table, Black explained.
“And we have not asked any city to make a dollar commitment.”

Instead, LSRD has been working with municipalities to form
Transportation Infrastructure Zones (TIZ) unique to each city. The zone
would establish a perimeter around each station – there are five
proposed so far in San Antonio – and a percentage of property tax
increases within the zone would go directly towards LSRD’s operation and
maintenance costs.

Where are these property tax increases coming from? The stations
themselves, as the property value surrounding them will, almost
certainly, rise as the amenity comes to the neighborhood. Most
agreements, like the one with San Marcos, also includes a sales tax
revenue contribution. Austin City Council approved a 56-year agreement, with commitment stipulations, in December 2013.

LSRD is currently working with City staff on an agreement unique to
San Antonio, but will likely have the same elements of agreements with
other cities, Black said. The cities of Kyle, Buda, and Round Rock have
yet to draft final agreements. Georgetown, New Braunfels, and Shertz
city councils will likely vote on final agreements in August. Once local
agreements are met, LSRD will be hunting for investment from federal,
state, and private entities to foot the $2-3 billion bill for the
commuter and freight lines. Once the Environmental Impact Statements are
complete, and the new freight line relocation is complete, then work
can begin on the commuter rail.


If all goes as planned, Black said, the LSTAR will begin trips in 2021 or 2022 – about 17 years in the making.

Interstate 35 is one of the most congested interstate segments in the
U.S., most of which is because of commuter and truck traffic. About 80%
of Mexico’s trade with the U.S. and Canada comes through the bottleneck
on I-35. More than 9,000 accidents occur between San Antonio and
Georgetown, the LSTAR’s northernmost stop, resulting in about 100 deaths
per year.

“The LSTAR could provide the
(transportation) equivalent of eight additional highway lanes (four
lanes in each direction),” Black said. “The space implications are huge —
moving more vehicles isn’t going to do it, we have to move people.”

The 118-mile commuter line would
utilize existing Union Pacific lines, but not until after a new freight
line is constructed in the east – a critical step for the LSTAR
operation. While local freight will still use the old line through San
Antonio, regional freight will be diverted to the new line, freeing up
time and space for the LSTAR to provide reliable, frequent trips. 

We use the word “commuter line” to generally describe the LSTAR, but
passengers will also be using it to get to events: Austinites to a Spurs
game, San Antonians to SXSW, Texas State University students to a
lecture at the University of Texas at San Antonio.

Between UTSA, TSU, the Texas A&M University system, and community
colleges, thousands of students would be connected to a network of
higher education and job opportunities.

Black said there will also be consideration for bicycles on the
LSTAR. Connecting the stations to transportation options that complete
that “first mile/last mile” portion of travel – like bikes, bikeshare,
rideshare, or bus transit to get to final destinations.

Bike

World Manager Eddie Martinez talks about the need for bike safety
awareness and infrastructure in San Antonio. Photo by Iris Dimmick

The event left many people imagining multimodal transportation
routes. Take a San Antonio B-cycle from your neighborhood to the
downtown LSTAR station, ride to Austin, take a cab to a concert, take an
Uber back, catch the LSTAR back in time for a good night’s sleep.

“This lecture series is something we’re very proud of because it has
always been part of our dream to go beyond buildings,” said BSAG
Executive Director Anita Ledbetter. BSAG partnered with CPS Energy,
Alamo Beer, Geekdom, Do210, and Local 782 for the new urbanism series.
This is the third SA Next event and more are planned for the rest of the
year.

“There’s not going to be one (environmental) solution, we all need
options,” Ledbetter said. “We wanted to provide a platform for them
all.”

*Featured/top image: Uber San Antonio General Manager Henry Carr
(right) speaks as LSRD Rail Director Joseph Black (left), and Bike World
Manager Eddie Martinez look on. Photo by Iris Dimmick.

Lone Star Rail District Seeks $500K from San Antonio

Lone Star Rail District Seeks $500K from San Antonio

Officials with Lone Star Rail District (LSRD) have asked City Council to allocate up to $500,000 in the city’s 2016 fiscal year budget to help fund staffing and consulting services in anticipation of the $2-3 billion passenger rail project.

Lone Star Rail (LSTAR) project supporters see the project as a means for commuters to avoid congested roads between San Antonio and Austin and the potential for economic development and higher educational opportunities in one of the fastest growing regions in the nation.

LSRD officials made their case for initial funding during the Council’s B session on Wednesday. The plan includes improving the existing Union Pacific railroad that runs parallel to Interstate 35 between San Antonio and Austin for passengers at an estimated cost of $800 million. LSRD would first build a $1.6 billion freight line east of San Antonio that would take on the freight traffic of the exiting line. These one-time capital construction costs would be funded by state and federal grants as well as the private sector. But first, it needs assurances from municipalities along its route from San Antonio to Georgetown, just north of Austin, that they will pay for continued maintenance and operations of each stop.
The idea is to pull 18,000 vehicles, or 20,000 people, off I-35 daily. LSRD proposes 16 station locations, including six in the San Antonio area, one in New Braunfels and one in San Marcos. The inner city locations would be Loop 410 at the San Antonio International Airport, the University of Texas at San Antonio Downtown campus, Port San Antonio, and Texas A&M University-San Antonio.

“It’s a very big, complicated infrastructure project,” said Tullos Wells, vice chairman of the LSRD Board of Directors representing San Antonio. “You can’t solve all of the congestion and the risks it poses to the economic vitality in our region by pouring more concrete alone. Lone Star Rail alone won’t solve all the transportation problems in this region, but it’ll be a very important part of the solution. We’re going to have two million more warm bodies along this corridor in the next 25 years and we need a way to move them.”

At full capacity, there could be up to 32 trains running per day, including midday and evening service in each direction for commuters, students and other regional travelers – depending on demand. The system would support a 75-minute express service from downtown San Antonio to downtown Austin with stops in San Marcos and New Braunfels. LSRD promises modern, safe passenger cars with wireless Internet access, especially beneficial to business travelers and college students.

If all goes well, San Antonio’s $500,000 initial contribution in FY 2016 would consist of funds from the City’s general fund budget and property tax revenue derived from Transportation Infrastructure Zone (TIZ) around the LSR stations.

There would be continual financial commitments each year over the duration of a 36-year funding agreement, which would accompany a 36-year TIZ agreement. LSRD officials pledged not to seek any other funds from San Antonio’s proposed FY 2016 budget. Deputy City Manager Peter Zanoni explained that in 10-year increments, from 2021 to 2051, TIZ funds would cover most of the annual funding commitment with San Antonio.

Financing for the entire system is supposed to be split among San Antonio, Austin, and a coalition of seven “smaller” yet major cities along the LSR route, including Schertz and New Braunfels. LSRD estimates that annual funding for the system could reach $75 million by 2050, split among participating cities and taxing entities.

LSRD is also requesting funds from Bexar County and Alamo Colleges. Zanoni said the system’s current 36-year funding plan has a funding gap of $44 million in 2021, a gap that LSR presently cannot fill. Also, the plan has not identified funding for the maintenance of San Antonio’s stations, totaling $24 million over 30 years, Zanoni told the Council.

The Lone Star Rail District anticipates yearly total system funding, split among participating taxing entities, at more than $75 million by 2050 if all goes as planned. Graphic courtesy of Lone Star Rail District.

In addition to their recommendation of allocating $500,000 in FY16 as San Antonio’s initial contribution and signal of support, City staff recommended setting up a calendar for funding and TIZ agreements, including milestones and benchmark goals, as well as cancellation options if goals cannot be reached.

Wells called the $500,000 request a “placeholder” that allows the organization to work through business modeling for the entire operation. While many expressed support for the LSTAR project, Council members also were concerned with the project’s finances. Wells said it’s natural to build support for the level of public and private monies that could be used over decades to fund the system.

Wells said he and colleagues are presently looking at three finance models, with different formulas, and an independent third-party will verify the numbers in each model.
“There will be benefits from this alternative transit option, but we have to be good fiscal stewards,” Mayor Ivy Taylor said.

Wells addressed the project’s funding gap.

“We’re a bit early in the game to talk more about that. Right now, we need baseline support from the community.”

The Lone Star Rail District has outlined projected funding the system would need from local participating taxing entities. However, a funding gap presently exists as of 2031 as the system gets really rolling. Graphic courtesy of Lone Star Rail Dristrict.

Council members such as Ray Lopez (D6) and Rey Saldaña (D7) agreed with Wells that public and private investment could lead to a wider variety of opportunities for both businesses and residents. This, they added, would be true especially for lower-income individuals and cash-strapped college students by providing them more employment and higher education opportunities. Wells said ticket prices have not yet been determined.
“This could have a positive generational impact for many future generations, not just now,” Lopez said. “I do believe we’re a mass transit-focused community, we just haven’t figured out yet the level of commitment. We’re just doing our due diligence.”

Councilmember Joe Krier (D9) has been a vocal advocate of building a regional commuter rail system for 20 years. He said there’s still a lot to be worked out, and a lot of improvements that can be applied to existing forms of local mass transit. But he said the LSTAR represents an opportunity to further growth in San Antonio, and help transport future generations of riders.

“In the last century, if you didn’t have a railroad going through your town, you’d literally dry up and blow away,” Krier said. “In this century, railroads are seeing a renaissance of interest because they provide that alternative transportation option.”

Krier, along with Councilmember Shirley Gonzales (D5) said LSR officials should emphasize the system’s potential for improving rail crossings, particularly in older neighborhoods, and how it could improve overall public health and safety in the region.

“If it does nothing else than to reduce the rate of deaths on this stretch of highway, it would have provided much improvement and benefit to the region,” Krier said.
The Council will consider the $500,000 request as it continues discussing the proposed FY16 budget.

*Featured/top image: A map of the proposed Lone Star Rail line. Courtesy image.

Lone Star Rail Officials Ask VIA Board for $500,000

Lone Star Rail Officials Ask VIA Board for $500,000

Lone Star Rail District (LSRD), a proposed passenger rail project that would run between Austin and San Antonio, is seeking funding from VIA Metropolitan Transit.

District officials asked the VIA board of trustees on Tuesday to make room in the transit agency’s 2016 fiscal year (FY) budget to allocate $500,000. LSRD also asked VIA to consider a joint operations agreement that would last up to six years. The $500,000 request would be a one-time payment to support start-up maintenance and operations.

LSRD has also recently asked the City of San Antonio and Bexar County to each allocate $500,000 annually, starting with FY 2016, until they each reach a total of $2 million in operating and maintenance funds for the project.

The Lone Star Rail (LSTAR) line supporters say the estimated $2.4 billion regional rail system will be a way for commuters to avoid congested roads between San Antonio and Austin. They also see potential for economic growth and improved entertainment and higher education access in one of the nation’s fastest growing regions.

LSRD proposes upgrading the current Union Pacific railroad that runs parallel to Interstate 35 between San Antonio and Austin for passengers at an estimated cost of $800 million. LSRD would first build a $1.6 billion freight line from San Antonio to Seguin to Taylor, east of Round Rock, taking the freight traffic off the existing line.

LSTAR would take about 18,000 vehicles, or 20,000 people, off I-35 every day, according to Tullos Wells, a local attorney who serves as vice chairman of the LSRD Board of Directors. That’s about 10% of daily traffic.

Wells described Austin-San Antonio I-35 corridor as “a serial killer.” He said about 100 people die in accidents on this section of I-35 every year.

These one-time capital construction costs would be supported by state and federal grants, and the private sector. But first, the district wants assurances from governmental entities along its route – from San Antonio to Georgetown – that they will pay for continued maintenance and operations at each stop.

If approved by City Council in its own FY 2016 budget, San Antonio’s initial $500,000 contribution would consist of funds from the city’s general fund and property tax revenue derived from a Transportation Infrastructure Zone (TIZ) around each local station. LSRD proposes 16 station locations for the entire system, including six in the San Antonio area.

On the northern side of the rail line, the City of Austin has approved a joint operating agreement but has not asked to provide a guaranteed funding figure in its pact with the district.

Joseph Black, LSRD’s rail director, later said the Transportation Infrastructure Zones in the Austin area are projected to be in prime pieces of real estate east of town. Those zones have potential to produce more revenue than the money that the city could allocate from its budget.

“Those TIZ’s would likely outperform what the city of Austin could provide on its own,” Black said. “On the other side, the planned TIZ locations in San Antonio would likely not perform as well. They would be in tax-exempt areas like the airport.”
The City and the County will consider the funding requests for their respective budgets that must be adopted by Sept. 30.

As part of its pact with VIA, Wells told trustees that the rail district could work to help improve parts of the transit agency’s infrastructure. “Lone Star is keenly aware VIA does not receive the same level of funding as other major metropolitan transit authorities in Texas,” Wells added.

Wells and Black maintained that operating/funding agreements would include a six-year measurement. If for some reason the rail project has made little to no progress in that time, a participating entity may opt to back out and its allocated money would be returned.

The VIA board will consider the funding request when it adopts its FY 2016 operating budget in September. Several trustees said they like what they see from LSRD’s plans.

“I am looking forward to the project’s completion,” said Board Chairwoman Hope Andrade.

“This makes us really multi-modal,” Dr. Richard Gambitta said. He added that the project benefits VIA and offers economic advantages to San Antonio.

Black said LSRD will soon approach Alamo Colleges with a funding request. Lone Star already has an operating agreement with the Austin Community College District.

District officials have said a regional commuter rail will provide students along the Austin-San Antonio corridor a more efficient way to commute to out-of-town educational institutions.

*Featured/top image: Rendering of a Lone Star Rail (LSTAR) stop in Austin. Courtesy of LSRD.

Texas land grab: Annexations trample property rights - Watchdog.org

Texas land grab: Annexations trample property rights - Watchdog.org

By Kenric Ward | Texas Watchdog.org

Without property owners’ consent, Texas cities expand their tax base
and pad their bank accounts by annexing thousands of square miles of
suburbia.

“Texans hold dear to the right to self-governance, free association
and private property,” says James Quintero, director of the Center for
Local Governance at the Texas Public Policy Foundation. “They are under
assault by forced annexation policies employed by cities.”
 
San Antonio, America’s seventh largest city, is one of the most
aggressive land grabbers. Its latest annexation plan targets 252,000
residents and 87 square miles of Bexar County.

Affluent districts on San Antonio’s north and southwest side are in
the city’s sights. It’s no coincidence the suburban pockets are among
the most highly valued in the metro area.

More than $17 billion in debt, the Alamo City needs to shore up its tax base.

“Forced annexation policies allow cities like San Antonio to impose
their taxes, debts and big-government structures on people against their
will,” Quintero asserts.

Bennett Sandlin, executive director of the Texas Municipal League,
says city and county tax rates average about the same across the state,
roughly 50 cents per $100 assessed valuation.

“People in non-city areas often pay many additional property taxes to
a variety of special districts like municipal utility districts. Cities
can replace the services many of these districts provide at less cost,”
he told Watchdog.org.

County officials generally do not oppose annexation, since they
continue to levy property taxes after incorporation. That typically
means higher overall taxes for annexed properties.

VIDEO: Phil Gramm — end forced annexation in Texas

Government reform groups want the next legislative session to bring more accountability to the annexation process by:

Requiring annexing cities to produce a written contract for services in at least two public hearings.
Requiring approval by a majority of the voters or landowners. Areas
of fewer than 200 residents could be done via petition; larger areas
would require a referendum at a regularly scheduled election.

State Sen. Donna Campbell, R-New Braunfels, and Rep. Dan Huberty, R-Kingwood, authored annexation-reform bills (SB 1639 and HB 2221) that were not enacted last session. They pledge to continue to fight for accountability.

Terri Hall, president of the San Antonio-based Texans Uniting for
Reform and Freedom, says taxpayers can’t afford to wait. “We encourage
Gov. (Greg) Abbott to call a special session to address forced
annexation,” she said.

“It’s an outrage that San Antonio would go so far outside its limits
to grab taxpayers who never intended to live inside San Antonio. This
isn’t self-governance, it’s abusive government that threatens a free
society and property rights.”

Current law “enables local government excess,” Quintero said.

“Instead of cities working through their budgets to address
inefficiencies, they’re grabbing cash-rich areas to finance
big-government ideas that are failing,” he concluded.

Kenric Ward writes for the Texas Bureau of Watchdog.org. Contact him at kward@watchdog.org.

Light Rail Facts and Figures

by Corina Bonitez 

 

We would rather this be decided by reasonable people, making reasonable decisions,” said Judson, who helped successfully crush a light-rail ballot initiative here in 2000.

Voters here soundly defeated a sales tax increase to pay for a light rail line in 2000, a fact brought up several times Monday night.

“Shall the City Charter be amended to provide that no grant of permission to alter or damage any public way of the city for the laying of streetcar or light rail tracks shall ever be valid, and no funds shall be appropriated and no bonds or notes shall be issued or sold for the purpose of streetcar or light rail systems, unless first approved by a majority of the qualified electors of the city voting at an election containing a proposition specifically identified for and limited to such purpose?”

Additionally, the proposed amendment language would require an election before the City could grant a routine easement, lease or other transaction involving the use of a City street, highway, alley, park, public place or real property. The requirement of an election would cause significant delay and negatively impact a wide range of entities that require these types of agreements to provide services to City residents.

---------------------------------------

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2011/02/light-rail-and-sustainability.html

high speed rail does not reduce CO2 emissions and doesn’t reduce congestion, than why should it be highly subsidized? It only serves a narrow niche of needs as there are transportation options that are faster (air), cheaper (bus) or more convenient (auto). Taken from 2009 National Transit Database, (http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=4208)

For all US light rail systems in total:

User fares paid per passenger-mile: $0.18

Total cost per passenger-mile: $2.22

Taxpayer subsidy per passenger-mile: $2.04

Since I live in Phoenix and the Phoenix light rail system seems to get particular praise as a "success" from light rail supporters, here are the Phoenix light rail numbers;

User fares paid per passenger-mile: $0.07

Total cost per passenger-mile: $3.89

Taxpayer subsidy per passenger-mile: $3.82

Nationwide, non-users of light rail pay for 92% of its costs. In Phoenix, non-users pay for 98% of the costs. Taking the Phoenix system as an example, resources are drained from literally millions of people so that 17,000 or so people can ride it round trip each day. Using resources from millions of people, and building up debts that will last into the next generation, to support the transit of just a few people, seems to be the antithesis of sustainability.

In 2012 about 3.2 trillion passenger miles driven by urban drivers in cars in the US. My point about light rail is that we can barely afford it for just a few people, given that we spent $1.3 billion to build a rail line for about 17,000 daily round trip riders in Phoenix. If it were truly a sustainable technology, it could be applied to all commuters. But at a national average taxpayer subsidy per light rail passenger mile of about $2, this means that to roll light rail out to everyone would cost $6.4 trillion a year, almost half our annual GDP. If it required the subsidy rates we have in Phoenix per passenger-mile, such a system would cost over $12 trillion year. In fact, the numbers would likely be even higher in reality, because light rail in most cities is almost certainly built on the highest populated corridors with the most bang for the buck (though some of the diminishing returns would be offset by network effects).

http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/federal_subsidies_to_passenger_transportation/pdf/entire.pdf

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Subsidies to Passenger

Transportation, December 2004

San Antonio considering six more areas to annex - San Antonio Express-News

San Antonio considering six more areas to annex - San Antonio Express-News



The city of San Antonio may annex six more areas of unincorporated Bexar County, on top of five already under consideration for annexation.

The idea was discussed Tuesday at a City Council budget session. Planning director John Dugan presented the idea to the council, but no formal vote has yet been taken.

Together, the six additional areas make up nearly 87 square miles and include more than 52,000 people as of now.

The six are:
Scenic Loop area, off Interstate 10 north of Loop 1604;
On the far West Side, an area around Culebra Road and Shaenfield Road, outside of Loop 1604;
An area near Potranco and Tally roads west of Loop 1604 and north of U.S. 90;
On the Southeast Side, an area near Old Corpus Christi Highway and Highway 181;
To the east, an area mostly south of I-10 east and in the Crestway area;
To the north, areas off U.S. 281 North.

One reason for the urgency — several bills were filed during the last state legislative session that would have seriously handicapped a city’s ability to annex. None of the bills passed, but their future potential for passage was raised as a concern at Tuesday’s meeting.

Already, the city is in the process of moving toward annexation of five other areas, that make up 65 square miles in unincorporated Bexar County.

For more on this developing story, check in later at ExpressNews.com or read Wednesday’s Express-News.

vdavila@express-news.net

Light rail by another name? - San Antonio Express-News

Light rail by another name? - San Antonio Express-News


To many public transit advocates, streetcars and light rail couldn't be more different. Streetcars are slower, light-rail vehicles go longer distances and their costs can vary widely.

But to rail opponents, both run on tracks and that makes them exactly the same.

That argument now is being used to challenge construction of two downtown streetcar lines using tax dollars that opponents contend VIA Metropolitan Transit previously promised voters would never go toward light rail.

Defining the difference might make or break VIA's plan.

“It is the same technology. It's a fixed guideway, fixed rail,” said Jeff Judson, an Olmos Park city councilman, who played a key role in the defeat of a 2000 light-rail initiative and now has launched a similar fight against streetcars. “It's electric-powered cars. If you look at the definitions in all the different federal sources, it is light rail.”

Industry experts indicate the reality is more complex.

“It depends on the use of the car,” said Martin Schroeder, chief engineer for the American Public Transportation Association.

Generally, streetcars and light rail accomplish two distinct goals. Light rail connects regional centers that are farther apart, like city centers to the suburbs or to an airport. Streetcars typically operate in downtowns or urban cores and ferry passengers for short trips.

Streetcars also are associated with economic development and their perceived ability to revive urban areas.

“When I'm downtown, I take the streetcar,” said Schroeder, who's based in Washington. “When I go home, I take the light rail.”

Last fall, VIA Metropolitan Transit, Bexar County and the city voted to jointly pay for the $190 million streetcar system, which was part of a larger, $239 million transportation package that includes two Park & Ride stations, and the development of two multimodal transit hubs on the west and east sides of downtown.

One streetcar line would run from the Pearl along Broadway, then to the Alamodome. The other would start near Cattlemen's Square, then go south an Alamo Street to Southtown. Each would be about 2.5 miles long. If built, they could be in operation by 2015 or 2016.

Judson, along with tea party President George Rodriguez and a group of state and local elected officials, say Bexar County commissioners broke a contract with the voters by using $92 million in advanced transportation district funds (ATD) to pay for the county's portion.

ATD was a sales tax increase that voters approved in 2004. But because the failed light-rail election still was so fresh, VIA produced campaign literature pledging not to spend ATD funds on light rail or toll roads. The VIA board approved a resolution pledging the same.

The anti-rail coalition, led by Judson, has threatened legal action if the ATD funds are spent on the streetcar project.

“They only call it something different now that it's convenient to do so,” Judson said.

Bexar County Judge Nelson Wolff, one of streetcar's most unabashed cheerleaders, makes no bones that VIA's long-term plans include light rail, perhaps one to International Airport. But streetcars are the precursor, not the identical twin.

“I think it's the first phase that comes to a light rail,” Wolff said. “But it's not a light rail.”

The difference?

Experts say a streetcar is not just defined by technology or vehicle specifications but intended use and also its potential effect on the environment around it.

The modern streetcar movement started in 2001, when Portland opened its landmark system; over the next 11 years, dozens of other cities followed. Streetcars usually operate in densely developed areas, often downtowns, and usually are tied to economic development and revitalization, said Linda Cherrington, with the Texas Transportation Institute.

Light-rail vehicles usually stop at larger stations. Streetcars pick up and drop off passengers more frequently at places similar to bus stops.

“People like them because it brings a certain vibrance to the downtown, and people just find it easy to hop around the streetcar and get around,” Schroeder said. “It really does a lot for the downtown center.”

Cherrington said a streetcar is “a type of light rail, but the application is in a very small, specific area.”

They are also cheaper. A streetcar can cost $25 to $40 million per mile to build. The price tag to build a light-rail line, which usually is longer than a streetcar line, is $50 to $90 million per mile.

But their technical definitions aren't always clear cut.

The Federal Highway Administration's definition, cited in a March 1 letter sent to Wolff by the elected officials opposing the use of ATD funds for streetcar, calls light rail a “streetcar-type vehicle.” But the definition used by the Federal Transit Administration does not.

Cities often develop light-rail systems first, and then pursue streetcars, though the systems eventually can connect.

Dallas Area Rapid Transit already operates an extensive light-rail system and provides some funding to a privately run streetcar line called the McKinney Avenue Trolley or M-Line.

Now the city is pursuing construction of a streetcar line that will connect downtown to the city's Oak Cliff neighborhood, across the Trinity River. Plans for another streetcar circulator are under discussion, DART spokesman Morgan Lyons said.

“What streetcar would do for us, they go a few places that the light rail doesn't go,” Lyons said. “They are a long-term investment,” because the tracks are embedded in the roads.

Seattle opened its first streetcar line in late 2007, two years before the region's first light-rail system launched.

“We would say they are different,” said Ethan Melone, rail transit manager for the Seattle Department of Transportation. Seattle's streetcar is 66 feet long and eight feet wide. The light-rail vehicles are about 90 feet long and a foot wider.

Light-rail vehicles are usually coupled together, unlike streetcars, and often require exclusive rights of way and make longer trips.

“All of that means is a streetcar can fit into an existing street or neighborhood without making major changes to the street,” Melone said.

In San Antonio, VIA plans to route at least one streetcar line and a soon-to-be-launched bus rapid transit line through the same downtown transit centers.

As Wolff said, light rail is a future possibility. But, said VIA CEO and President Keith Parker, a streetcar is the right mode for the city now.

“Streetcar is a very good technology for where we are in San Antonio, in that the cost and even the length of time that's associated with building a light-rail line is beyond our financial means at this point,” Parker said.

Gray areas

But the definitions keep evolving, as technology blurs the divide between the two modes, said Schroeder, with APTA.

Streetcar and light-rail vehicles can look the same or even be the same. According to a study by the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the light-rail system in Tacoma, Wash., uses the same cars as the Portland and Seattle streetcar networks.

Both streetcar and light rail usually are connected to overhead wires that power the vehicles. Increasingly, wireless technology is available for both modes, Schroeder said. VIA is considering wireless vehicles, Parker said.

Even the terms are changing. Austin is debating construction of what transportation officials there call an urban rail line. Like a streetcar, it would operate in downtown and around the University of Texas at Austin, if it's built. But the proposed network also would connect to the city's international airport and to a city-owned, mixed-use development outside the central core.

Sometimes, the differences simply come down to how each community views the various transit modes, and how those were viewed in the past, Cherrington said.

Austin voters defeated a light-rail initiative in 2000. But they approved a commuter-rail line four years later, and that now travels between Leander and downtown.

To Parker, this kind of debate is normal in any city considering a rail option.

And he agreed on at least one way streetcar and light rail are similar — they can attract a type of rider that regular bus service can't.

Streetcar “will give us an opportunity to see if this community is ready for a true multimodal investment in a way that I think is meaningful,” Parker said.

vdavila@express-news.net

Wolff's shares light rail dream - San Antonio Express-News

Wolff's shares light rail dream - San Antonio Express-News

 

An invitation from the Leon Springs Business Association put Bexar County Judge Nelson Wolff back in his old stomping grounds.

At the LSBA's May 16 luncheon, the former mayor, who moved to Leon Springs in 1971, provided an update on Bexar County projects either under way or on his wish list, including one that's close to his heart: a light-rail system for San Antonio.

The issue has long been controversial with those in favor and those opposed often split down party lines.

“I'm a Democrat. There aren't too many old Anglo Democrats left. My son (Bexar County Commissioner Kevin Wolff) is a Republican. I don't know what went wrong,” he joked, adding, “He's done a good job, and we get along well.”

Although not funded or “a sure thing,” Judge Wolff envisions an 18-mile commuter light rail stretching from downtown to The Rim with a streetcar link in a downtown location and a connection to Boerne, something his son has publicly opposed.

“I have a very good relationship with Union Pacific,” the elder Wolff said. “This will do a good job providing rail services. We're the only city of this size in the country without one.”

Wolff said Bexar County flood-control projects in the Leon Springs area, where flooding has hit residents hard in the past, include four high-water-detection systems and one flood-control project.

The county is in its fourth year of a $500 million flood-control program that includes 79 projects identified by the community and Bexar Watershed Management.

“More than 900 residences will be remapped out of the flood plain as a result of these projects,” Wolff said. “That represents a cost savings of $1,200 per resident a year.”

He noted that approximately 375 acres will be removed from floodplains and more than 7.5 miles of major and secondary roads will be made passable in the event of a a 100-year flood.

Wolff outlined projects throughout Bexar County, including a largest-in-the nation BiblioTech digital library. The physical address is 3505 Pleasanton Road, but any country resident can access it through www.bexarbibliotech.org. The service went live May 16, according to Bexar County spokesperson Laura Jesse.

“Hopefully, this will be the right decision for us,” Wolff said, joking that many people don't know what a county judge does. “One lady told me that she was happy that I was now a judge, so that I could handle her divorce. I told her that I wasn't that kind of judge. What I do is not judicial.”

Miss San Antonio's Outstanding Teen 2013 and Leon Springs resident Presley Price also made an appearance at the LSBA's meeting. She explained she has taken up the cause of anti-bullying because she has been a victim of bullying in school.

“I think I can relate to kids better than adults can because I'm a teen,” Price said.

“You can be pretty and still be bullied. I tell them, 'Look at me; I was bullied,' and I like to quote (former President Bill) Clinton, who said, 'You can't give other people permission to wreck your life.' You have to stand up to bullies.”

San Antonians should vote yes on streetcar amendment - San Antonio Express-News

San Antonians should vote yes on streetcar amendment - San Antonio Express-News


I guess I shouldn’t have been surprised when I saw the headline “Streetcar Amendment Is a Bad Policy” and then noticed it was written by Pat DiGiovanni. To my knowledge, Mr. DiGiovanni has never invested a nickel in any projects downtown but has taken thousands of dollars for “advice and consulting.” How this gives him any position in this issue is a stretch.

Now for the facts: The San Antonio City Charter Amendment Proposition 1 is just common sense for anyone who believes the public has a right and even a duty to vote on any project that is taking public money. As I read Proposition 1 and the upcoming vote, that is what passing it does. I am going to outline below reasons for this and why it is good policy to vote for Charter Amendment Proposition 1.

This charter amendment is necessary because San Antonio voters currently have no right to vote on light rail or streetcar, no matter how expensive. The recent streetcar project that Mayor Ivy Taylor put a stop to was not a “pay-as-you-go” project, as was recently claimed on the editorial page. It was paid for with debt, but voters were precluded from voting on the bonds by legislation passed in 2011 which took away the right of local taxpayers to vote on bonds for light rail. The city charter amendment restores that right no matter how the rail system is paid for.

A light rail or streetcar system would require the prolonged destruction of city streets, hundreds of millions of dollars to build, decades of debt payments, huge operating subsidies from local taxpayers and then full replacement of the system in 30 years when the rail system needs replacement.

Why would a charter amendment single out one mode of transportation for voter approval? Because it is uniquely expensive and does so little to actually improve mobility. Our roads are paid for with gasoline tax dollars and some local tax dollars, carry almost all travel in our community — including bus transit — and require no operating subsidies like a rail system would.

Voting on every road expansion or improvement would be silly, and no one is proposing to do that. We expect roads to be improved and expanded as traffic increases, and we endure the construction hassles along the way. Yet, only about 2 percent of trips locally are taken on transit. Imagine moving a small fraction of these trips onto a rail system — designed and built from scratch — that would likely cost billions, but doing so without the scrutiny of voters. It is unfathomable.

Do we need a “diverse” transportation system? Certainly. We currently have diversity that could be expanded and includes regular bus transit, rapid bus (VIA’s Primo System), private automobiles, bicycling, walking and telecommuting. The cheapest way to add capacity to our current transportation network is to encourage the already growing trend of telecommuting — working at home rather than driving to work at all, which already has a larger market share than transit. But where is the leadership on this front?

Adding light rail would offer very few in our community a viable transportation option since it is so expensive — $198 million/mile on average — inflexible in its routes and difficult to expand.

Want more rapid transit? Synchronize traffic lights for a rapid bus system, or build dedicated busways for modern rapid bus — far cheaper to build than rail, but such a system would carry more people at faster speeds with less capital costs than rail.

Downtown redevelopment is happening without rail. The momentum to improve downtown should continue, as it obviously will in the coming years with our new convention center, Hemisfair park redevelopment, improvements to the Alamodome and a new high-rise office building next to the Frost Bank.

Voting yes on City Charter Amendment Proposition 1 — which requires voter approval before rail can be built — is a wise step to ensure we make good decisions about our transportation future.

Red McCombs is a businessman, civic leader and philanthropist.

Light rail goes on ballot in Austin - San Antonio Express-News

Light rail goes on ballot in Austin - San Antonio Express-News


AUSTIN — The Austin City Council has unanimously decided to ask voters in November to authorize the city to borrow $600 million toward the cost of a $1.4 billion, 9.5-mile light rail line in central and southeast Austin.

The Austin American-Statesman reports the ballot language approved Thursday includes a caveat that the rail borrowing could occur only after a future City Council commits to spending an additional $400 million for road projects on highways of "regional significance."

Also, the city won't build the light rail line unless the Federal Transit Administration agrees to match what the city puts into the project. The city hasn't yet begun an environmental study or officially applied for a federal grant.

Rail officials here have said the line would open for service about 2022.

Council pay,rail approval get the OK - San Antonio Express-News

Council pay, rail approval get the OK - San Antonio Express-News


San Antonio’s mayor and City Council members will start earning full salaries when the next term starts after voters approved a charter amendment Saturday to give the city’s lawmakers hefty raises.

Also, voters overwhelmingly backed another charter amendment that will give them a chance to vote on future streetcar or light-rail projects in the city.

With the passage of Charter Amendment 2, council members will earn $45,722 each year — the median household income in the San Antonio area — and the mayor will make $61,725, 35 percent more than that. Council members now earn $1,040 a year, or $20 a week, while the mayor makes $4,040.

Supporters of the measure argued that the lack of pay dissuaded qualified candidates from running for a council seat and noted that San Antonio is a rare major city that does not pay council members and the mayor living wages.

The rail measure, Charter Amendment 1, passed by a margin of roughly 2-1. It requires the city to get voter approval before contributing funding to a streetcar or light-rail project or allowing such a project to use city streets.

Two other charter amendments sailed to victory.

Charter Amendment 3 requires a special election instead of an appointment to fill a mayoral or council vacancy if there are more than 120 days left in the term. Charter Amendment 4 strips obsolete language from the charter.

Amendment 1 now leaves any future streetcar or light-rail proposal facing a new and substantial hurdle before it can break ground. It also bans the city from packaging the rail vote with another transportation initiative, such as road construction or bus system improvements.

The measure was put on the ballot after a wave of opposition emerged to VIA Metropolitan Transit’s proposed $280 million downtown streetcar. Last summer, the city and county pulled their support for the project, effectively killing it.

Despite the heated debate over the streetcar project, the fight over the charter amendment was quiet. VIA did not oppose it and even the leading streetcar critics acknowledged their campaign in support of the measure was low-key.

“People want the vote on these types of projects,” said Greg Brockhouse, who helped spearhead the fight against the streetcar plan. “I think they spoke loud and clear.”

Brockhouse also campaigned against the council-pay measure, but was up against most of the city’s former mayors and a political action committee, Sensible Pay for SA, that had the money to buy ads and send out mailers.

“Shouldn’t we have a system of government that is up to the times — not one that was crafted in 1951?” former Mayor Henry Cisneros said recently in support of the measure. “Shouldn’t we have … some fair recompense for those who spend the hours to make decisions, to act on the recommendations of city management, to hold public hearings and listen to the public speak, to have town hall meetings in their districts?”

Brockhouse contended now was not the time to start paying council members full salaries.

“I think we did reasonably well, given the resources we had,” he said.

Voters overwhelmingly rejected a council-pay amendment in 2004. That measure would have increased pay to $31,000 for council members and $41,000 for the mayor.

djoseph@express-news.net

Twitter: @DrewQJoseph

Don't drop goal of light rail - San Antonio Express-News

Don't drop goal of light rail - San Antonio Express-News

 

SAN ANTONIO — With more than 1 million people expected to move to Bexar County in the next 25 years, now is not the time to sit idly when it comes to this region's pressing transportation needs.

Even if this stunning growth projection falls short, anyone who has been forced to sit in traffic on U.S. 281 understands the high costs of congestion and sprawl.

We simply cannot continue to rely on vehicles and asphalt to meet our transportation needs.

Consider the bind the state finds itself in for road maintenance and construction. Voters this fall may endorse a plan that provides $1.7 billion a year to the State Highway Fund, and Texas still will need to invest $4 billion more a year just to keep up.

This region must be aggressive in encouraging infill, improving bus service and, yes, building light rail service that provides meaningful connections between key institutions.

With the recent streetcar plan getting derailed by vehement public opposition, light rail is a touchy subject.

Supporters of the downtown streetcar are a bit sheepish about bringing up light rail, which is far more dynamic and costly.

Meanwhile, critics of the streetcar often cite light rail as a way to highlight the streetcar's inadequacies without actually endorsing rail.

Case in point, former San Antonio City Councilman Carlton Soules, now running for Bexar County judge.

“If maybe we had looked at something along the lines of airport to downtown, I think that would have been palatable to a lot of people, especially on other sides of town,” he said of the streetcar at a recent editorial board meeting.

Does that mean he supports light rail?

“No. I want to clarify, if it's cost-effective and makes sense, we need to look at all of our options,” he said.

The question shouldn't be if it's cost-effective, but how it will get done.

A credible light rail system would get people out of their cars, link key points in the community and have a dedicated funding source. And yes, it would be approved by voters.

Ignoring the need for rail here would be penny-wise and pound-foolish.

A May vote is set on a city charter amendment that will require a public vote prior to using city streets for any rail project.

That election will set the stage for more conversation on rail, and proponents of sensible transportation planning must use the opportunity to highlight the best way forward.

Rail between Austin and S.A. would be game-changer - San Antonio Express-News

Rail between Austin and S.A. would be game-changer - San Antonio Express-News

It’s been talked about for so long, it’s hard to believe rail between San Antonio and Austin will ever be real. But if you are a commuter, policymaker or a fiscal hawk, you should hope the region coalesces around the Lone Star Rail plan.

Commuters who travel on I-35 between fast-growing San Antonio and Austin have likely had plenty of time to wish there were a quick transportation alternative. Plenty of time, we say, because anyone who travels on I-35 regularly knows traffic often moves like molasses. And let’s be honest, that’s a bit harsh about the speed of molasses. Seriously, I-35 is a congested and dangerous parking lot that sometimes moonlights as a highway.

Commuters should be looking at a rail line that would connect San Antonio to Austin with a sense of joy and hope. We all know San Antonio and Austin are only going to get bigger, and even if you don’t ride the LSTAR, at least you can take solace knowing somebody else will. Lone Star Rail district staff have estimated 20,000 people a day would travel between San Antonio and Austin, reducing I-35 traffic by 10 percent.

Policymakers should also rejoice. Rail would further entwine the region’s two most significant economies. It would directly link our airport with the state capital, and our universities with the University of Texas at Austin. Imagine the potential for students from across the region in terms of research or internships, or how rail might attract potential employers and businesses. As we’ve seen in other markets, there is immense economic development along rail lines.

Fiscal hawks should embrace LSTAR because highways are incredibly expensive to expand and maintain. Earlier this year,David Ellis, an analyst and research scientist with the Texas A&M Transportation Institute, told us that, on average, highways cost $9.5 million per lane, per mile. That figure does not include right of way or maintenance. It is important to build and maintain highways, but clearly, we can’t continue to solely rely on them to move people around this state.

Now, LSTAR would be an expensive and large project, too. It would run from north of Austin to San Antonio’s South Side. But it’s a project whose cost would be shared across the region — and also covered through private and federal funding. San Antonio would initially provide $500,000 per year with that amount steadily increasing through 2051 to $14.5 million. Bexar County would follow a similar funding model.

Much of those funds would come from property tax revenues through special taxing districts around the rail’s stations. Some would be general funds. But much of what the city and county contributes to the project would be protected in case LSTAR doesn’t hit certain benchmarks.

For decades, the idea of rail between San Antonio and Austin has been as real as an illusion in the hot Texas sun. But there is a general feeling among officials that LSTAR could very well be running within eight years. To help make that happen, the city of San Antonio and Bexar County should provide this initial funding.

The doomed downtown streetcar plan tore this community apart, but commuter rail between San Antonio and Austin is the type of project the entire community should rally around. After all, we all know the pain of sitting in traffic on I-35.