Wolff rolls out another plan for light rail... It's looking good! - Page 2

oldmanshirt · #21 Posted **Sep 24, 2008, 12:40 PM**

Read it again. Looks like a motion was presented to delay BRT, but it failed.

Still, it helps to have VIA taking an active interest in this.

sakyle04 · #22 Posted **Sep 24, 2008, 1:27 PM**

i wish M1KE would weigh in...

it sounds like we would have commuter rail on "rails and nails" and not true, street-integrated light rail. or i am just confused by all of the craziness coming out of the Austin Transportation Thread.

Somebody straighten me out.

jaga185 · #23 Posted **Sep 24, 2008, 7:31 PM**

Yeah, I tend to get excited and skim read, it's a flaw. I read again today, hopefully they do away with it if LRT picks up.

oldmanshirt · #24 Posted **Sep 25, 2008, 1:39 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sakyle04

i wish M1KE would weigh in...

it sounds like we would have commuter rail on "rails and nails" and not true, street-integrated light rail. or i am just confused by all of the craziness coming out of the Austin Transportation Thread.

Somebody straighten me out.

I've read those threads too, and his contributions seem to generate more controversy than consensus.

My limited knowledge tells me this sounds more like commuter rail than real light rail, as you stated.

Even still, this and the River North streetcar would give SA way more rail than it ever had before, unless the old early 20th century streetcar was way more spread out than I'm thinking.

KeepSanAntonioLame · #25 Posted **Sep 25, 2008, 2:47 AM**

It went all the way to Alamo Heights. I think the faux-wooden bus stop at Broadway and Patterson was the northern most stop.

sirkingwilliam · #26 Posted **Sep 25, 2008, 4:37 AM**

Question, if the line east of 10 is created would that then mean that a Medical Center to Downtown line (current BRT line) wouldn't happen?

Also, I think it's more than asinine to use the 2000 vote as a reason to keep from not going through with LR again. I still can't believe there are board members with VIA currently who subscribe to that.

oldmanshirt · #27 Posted **Sep 25, 2008, 12:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sirkingwilliam

Question, if the line east of 10 is created would that then mean that a Medical Center to Downtown line (current BRT line) wouldn't happen?

That at least looks like a good possibility, from that article. Maybe they can put BRT on some portions of San Pedro instead.

sakyle04 · #28 Posted **Sep 25, 2008, 1:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sirkingwilliam

Question, if the line east of 10 is created would that then mean that a Medical Center to Downtown line (current BRT line) wouldn't happen?

Also, I think it's more than asinine to use the 2000 vote as a reason to keep from not going through with LR again. I still can't believe there are board members with VIA currently who subscribe to that.

one thing i have learned is that the BRT people have some serious sway. i don't doubt for one second that they haven't "pulled some strings" to get the unwavering support of the VIA folks...

tgannaway89 · #29 Posted **Oct 16, 2008, 8:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by tgannaway89

That quarry is too close to Camp Bullis. Recent news may sink property values if city gets control of development within 3-miles of Camp Bullis. They will side with the Army and halt development(s). I would expect to see a lot of lawsuits when the city tries to shut down The Rim, La Cantera, eilan, The Landmark, La Joya, and Cresta Bella (not to mention the headache this will cause UTSA and Valero with respect to future expansions/additions).

A local news story mentions that an "aggressive attempt to block development near military facilities" is a top priority for the city's 2009 agenda.

TXlifeguard · #30 Posted **Oct 22, 2008, 10:46 AM**

Or it could just be wishful thinking on my part...

This afternoon I was on my way to my final meeting of the day over by Incarnate Word. I was coming from the NW side of town, and decided to just take 10 down to Hildebrand and cut over to 281. It was 4:25 and I had just got on eastbound Hildebrand, right off 10 and the railroad crossing arms start to flash and lower (not to be confused with the other rail line that runs up to Austin, just a mile or so to the east).

As has been discussed here before this is the rail line under discussion for Wolff's latest plan and is almost entirely used for moving rock from the quarries off of 1604 to cement plants, no more than a couple times a week- and RARELY local freight deliveries. Remember, this line is just a spur from downtown to the quarries... So I'm waiting for the train to pass into view (thinking to myself that it's pi$$ poor planning that they have to do this during rush hour) when the engine starts to pass into the intersection. But behind it was not a long line of gravel hopper cars, but one union pacific passenger car- with the domed observation area on top, followed immediately by another UP engine backed up to it running in reverse (presumably for track switching purposed on the the return trip from the rim).

I had to ask myself, 'why on earth would UP be running a passenger car up there and back?' I couldn't help but think that Wolff himself and a delegation of city, county, and military folk just might be on board getting a 'first hand' view of the potential service as they discussed station locations, feasibility, etc.

Why would UP have been running an observation car up that way? What do y'all think?

gunadic · #31 Posted **Oct 22, 2008, 1:32 PM**

I thought those tracks were the ones that would be used for the ASA commuter rail line?

Its also possible that they were just moving it. There are rail cars scattered all over the place in Texas it seems. In McAllen, there is a set of UP lumber cars that have been sitting on the tracks for years.

miaht82 · #32 Posted **Oct 22, 2008, 3:19 PM**

The ASA line would use the rail line parallel to 35; this line is the one that runs parallel to 10 and is used and ends at the Quarry near the Rim and the other "railport" off of Tradesman and 1604.
and that is quite strange that a "union pacific passenger car- with the domed observation area on top" would be going up that way. Interesting to see what will come about in the upcoming weeks.

alexjon · #33 Posted **Oct 22, 2008, 4:14 PM**

Half of Omaha is in SA regarding ASA rail, so it could very well be Wolff and a delegation from UP

sakyle04 · #34 Posted **Nov 9, 2008, 2:50 PM**

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/loc...ight_rail.html

Is San Antonio Ready for Light Rail?

A MySA story comparing San Antonio to Portland and discussing the possibilities of rail in SA.

Dom"n"Converse · #35 Posted **Nov 9, 2008, 4:32 PM**

So basically...

It doesn't really service too many people...or go to the major job centers outside of downtown along I-10.

METALMiKE · #36 Posted **Nov 9, 2008, 8:30 PM**

^ It's just a Starter line proposal.

jaga185 · #37 Posted **Nov 9, 2008, 9:40 PM**

It may not service many people, but it sure does service tourists who want to go to Fiesta Texas or La Cantera/The Rim and don't want to rent a car or taxi. IMO this is a great starter line.

oldmanshirt · #38 Posted **Nov 9, 2008, 11:26 PM**

It does avoid one of the things that helped kill the 2000 proposal: complexity

alexjon · #39 Posted **Nov 10, 2008, 3:35 AM**

I hope it's light rail, it would be helpful for the tourist crowd!

adtobias · #40 Posted **Nov 10, 2008, 6:54 AM**

Anything is better than what we have, but you dont want to set this proposal up for failure. You have to put the railine near. UTSA airport usaa medical center downtown toyota. ect ect ect for people to use it