A trackless train form the 281@Stone Oak park in ride to the airport and then onto the Pearl area and downtown would be a way to get the voters onboard. A second line could be UTSA main to UTSA downtown stoping at La Cantera, the Rim, a few medical center stops, and a few along Fred hooking up the other on Broadway by the Pearl.

That moves the professionals, the downtown hospitality workers, students, and suburban people wanting to play downtown. (Like the Dallas area)

You can put stations near undeveloped land, or under developed land, and it would increase urban infill in suburban areas. Bitters and 281 for example could be redeveloped into an urban center. Fred and 410 is another area that this could work.

I did leave off 35, but only because they have that sh$& show they are about to start with the elevated freeway on top of the existing one.

http://texashighwayman.com/i35nex.shtml

Ugh. Adding capacity will not improve congestion. How about using that elevated right of way for rail from SA to Austin (I realize that distance is beyond the parameters of this project)?

I'd be willing to bet we'll see dirt turn within the next 5 years. SAT will have to expand... and will. This is not me guessing either, I happen to work in the industry and closely with the company doing the master plan.

We shall see...


How much is changing from the Vision 2050 plan (which I think was completed in 2011)?

That called for expanding Terminal A by two gates (opening in 2019) and the construction of a Terminal C (six gates) to open in 2024/2025. Obviously, that plan did not start on schedule.

I'd like to see a dedicated lane on the elevated i35 for trackless tech, not rail. Rail, it was a good run, you changed the world, but the time has come for the next phase in tranportation!

I feel the same way about internal combustion engines. Rail is fine. Its permanence drives development.

Sure, rail is still fine for moving cargo on existing track, but trackless tech is alot more versatile & far cheaper & autonomous is on the horizon. Simply put, it's the future. Dont fear it, embrace it!

Cheaper up front, but as a long-term tax revenue generator?

What about autonomous?

Yup, & autonomous vehicles are vehicles that are capable of sensing the environment around them & moving with little or no human input. Pretty cool stuff.

Sounds super, but no such transit system exists so you can't tell how cheap and successful it is.

Dedicated lanes exist. That's what I said was cheaper. I said autonomous tech is on the horizon. Bottom line is rail is probably not going to happen. Personally, I'm glad SA is looking to the future, not the past. Some like to hold on the the past, some embrace the future. It's ok. Thanks for the conversation though. I enjoyed it, but ready to move on.

autonomous cars and tunnels. don't build outdated crap

To get back to your original point:

There are currently 178 cities in the world with metro rail systems (this does not include the worthless light rail in Dallas, Houston, and Austin). There are another 33 cities with metro rail currently under construction. (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metro_systems) Clearly rail works very well at moving lots of people and integrating with the urban fabric. Criticism of rail transit seems to focus on a perception of it being old-fashioned. This is in no way a convincing reason to not use rail. Also, this promoting of a transit system using currently-unavailable technology that's just around the corner and definitely changing everything and we've just gotta wait for this brand-new form of mass transit sounds to me more like a rhetorical trick to distract people from seriously considering a replacement to the single passenger vehicle than it is a reasonable plan for future transit.

I have to agree with spoiler, no other transit system (including autonomous vehicles) have the carrying capacity that rail supports (not to mention tax revenue and development). Plus, cars/parking kinda suck at adding charm and using space efficiently in any given area.

Seems to me the cure is worse than the disease. Unless you have a rail system that stops ever quarter mile or so, roadside attractions, stores, yes even gas stations, lose customers, and with that jobs.

And don't even give that "you can order online" bullcrap. If that's your argument, stop bitching about retail being a part of every new construction, because good retail will attract those that have to drive to get there.

This idea that rail can fix everything, and "single passenger cars" are evil is pure fiction. People will always want to stop and see the grandeur of the country, and rail doesn't allow for that. It will never have the versatility of cars.

Not to mention, manufacturing centers can't fit DT anymore. They are actually preferring the suburbs, due to many factors. The region is going to grow, and it will be "car centric". That is a fact.

Yeah, rail can move more people, as long as they all want to go to the same place, at the same time.

Better putting our efforts into more efficient personal autos, and making mass transit more convenient, than a one or the other approach.

You're making a lot of biased assumptions here, both about transit systems and about the beliefs of people you disagree with.

Well said. and Common Sense. I've never believed that one was better than the other. We just need to improve both means. Without the intention of being political... the personal automobile is one of the main reasons America is the economic engine that it is. The personal automobile (as long as America doesn't start regulating the actual use of them through extreme taxation etc) will continue to be American's first choice for daily transportation for now and in the future.

The issue isn't replacing the car, its reducing car-dependency. The freedom of the car that you express is bittersweet as an increasing number of Americans cannot afford their car payments, but do not have a choice in transportation as urban development forces it as the only viable option. Rail is just one tool in the belt to reduce this dependency, especially in higher density corridors. On top of that, transit-orientated economic centers tend to be more successful than car-orientated strip malls (of course there are exceptions that are few and far between). On top of that, these visitors that you mention won't have a choice as to transportation options. San Antonio's airport is known as one of the worst in the country as a result of a lack of transportation options. Nobody can stop to look at grandeur at all if they can't even get there.

Where are all of these poor souls that can't afford a bus ride? I'm no more against mass transit than you are against personal vehicles.

We're not getting rid of either, so improve both. Pretty simple really, but you and Spoiler are making more of my comment than is there.

So are you.

I'm looking at the continued growth outside of loops 410 and 1604, on all sides of town, and noting that rail lines won't be able to serve as much of it as trackless mass transit can.