VIA & Downtown Alliance Conducting Feasibility Study for Inner-City Streetcar System

[sirkingwilliam]

VIA and Downtown Alliance are looking into the possibility of bringing them back to inner-city S.A.

Can a streetcar system successfully run throughout San Antonio's inner city, connect businesses and residents, fuel development and make economic sense all at the same time?

Residents soon might find out if a rather old idea can rise again in San Antonio.

VIA Metropolitan Transit and the Downtown Alliance have hired Jacobs consulting company to conduct a four-month feasibility study that will look at whether San Antonio can support a streetcar system, how much it would cost, who would pay for the system, and where it would be built.

San Antonio had an extensive streetcar system in the late 1800s and early 1900s. But in 1933, San Antonio became the first large city in the country to abandon the streetcar as cars and buses gained popularity. They have yet to return.

The biggest obstacle to a new system likely will be the cost, which could run $30 million per mile said Ben Brewer, president of the Downtown Alliance.

“The issue is being able to put together the money,” said Rick Gustafson, executive director of Portland Streetcar Inc., which operates an eight-mile loop in Portland, Ore., that cost $103 million to build. “But more people are accepting the fact that transit is a fundamental need.”

The Downtown Alliance brought in Gustafson this week to discuss how Portland's system, which shuttles 12,000 riders daily, works. He spoke Tuesday to a group of about 40 property owners, business leaders and city officials at the El Tropicano Hotel.

A bulk of the money for the project came from bonds and improvement district funds, but developers drove a lot of the support, Gustafson said. It recently secured $75 million in federal funds for another expansion.

“The streetcar proved it could operate, and now it's accepted,” Gustafson said.

The purpose of streetcars is to help mobility, but it also can be a great economic driver that creates millions of dollars in private investment, said Mike McAnelly, a consultant with Jacobs.

The Portland route, for example, has attracted more than $3.5 billion in investment and more than 10,000 residential units within two blocks of the line since the route was identified in 1997.

And more than half of all the development in the central business district takes place within one block of the track, much of that development being projects that are filling previously vacant spaces.

“Some of it would have happened anyway, but many projects happened because of the streetcar line,” Brewer said.

It also has become a marketing tool for businesses, and its success has boosted the confidence of developers to increase density in the area, he said.

Streetcars differ from buses because they're on tracks and are powered by an overhead electric line. The system is different from trains and light rail in that the shallow track can run on streets and interact with cars. Portland's system has yet to have an injury accident since the original 2.4-mile segment opened in 2001.

The official name of San Antonio's feasibility study is the Inner-City Rail Circulator Study because it will look at the streetcar possibility beyond downtown, possibly as far south as U.S. 90 and as far north as Alamo Heights.

The longest time stretch of the project is the part leading up to construction. Once construction starts, a 600-foot stretch can be built in three weeks, Gustafson said.

“Hopefully, it'll become more than a study and will be a project soon,” said Jesse Balleza, vice president of strategic planning and project development at VIA.

[sirkingwilliam]

Let your line planning begin!

[sakyle04]

Originally Posted by sirkingwilliam

Let your line planning begin!

Here is the loop...

Begin at Martin/Soledad

E on Martin St
N on Broadway
W on Hildebrand
S on San Pedro (converging with Navarro/Main and reconnecting at Martin)

8.1 Miles total

Phase 1: Broadway line is 3.0 miles.
Phase 2: San Pedro line is 2.7 miles.
Phase 3: Hildebrand line is 2.2 miles.
Phase 4: Martin Line is 0.4 miles.

Eventually, an additional lateral could be built:

Beginning at San Pedro/Cypress

NW on Cypress (becoming Fredericksburg)
E on Hildebrand (reconnecting to system at Hildebrand/San Pedro)

Phase 5: Fred Rd extension is 2.6 miles.
Phase 6: Hildebrand extension is 1.8 miles.

[sirkingwilliam]

Does that include the proposed Convention center to Pearl line?

[sirkingwilliam]

What about a east-west line connecting UTSA with the CC and Alamodome/Sunset Station?

[sakyle04]

Originally Posted by sirkingwilliam

What about a east-west line connecting UTSA with the CC and Alamodome/Sunset Station?

I don't see much demand for an intra-DT line.

A supremely walkable DT cures the need for a streetcar that will be stuck in traffic.

As I see it, the streetcar should get people from an inner-loop hub to DT and back.

[sakyle04]

Originally Posted by sirkingwilliam

Does that include the proposed Convention center to Pearl line?

This could be the Broadway line (with an extension beyond Martin to the CC)...

[miaht82]

I definitely see the Broadway line as a good starting point. If 3rd/Broadway is the starting point, Cross owns the building and could use it to spark up development on that site.
-3rd/Broadway to Hildebrand, back and forth is my line.
stops at
-Brooklyn (Cross owns land on Brooklyn/river)
-Jones (Cross also owns the building at the corner and 1221, plus SAMA is a couple blocks away)
-Grayson (Pearl and 1800 will be anchors there.)
[if ButterKrust, Lone Star Chrysler or any of that land is developed, then there may be stops in between but then]
-Tuleta/Pershing (Witte Museum and Zoo; people can hop on the Brack Park train) and finally
-Hildebrand (AT&T/UIW.)

sakyle is right, once you get to the edge of the CBD, it should be all foot from there. If you must ride somthing, I think BRT will do the intraDT thing for the time being, although taking it down Houston St. to the proposed multimodal station would make sense too.

[alexjon]

Originally Posted by miaht82

sakyle is right, once you get to the edge of the CBD, it should be all foot from there. If you must ride somthing, I think BRT will do the intraDT thing for the time being, although taking it down Houston St. to the proposed multimodal station would make sense too.

That works in neither theory nor practice. Bringing it through the core works wonders. Traffic and street structure are conducive to efficient street-running of streetcars and the allure of a steady-paced pedestrian circulator is a good kick for development.

And a commuter system should never be used as a local system.

[miaht82]

Originally Posted by alexjon

That works in neither theory nor practice. Bringing it through the core works wonders. Traffic and street structure are conducive to efficient street-running of streetcars and the allure of a steady-paced pedestrian circulator is a good kick for development.

And a commuter system should never be used as a local system.

You're right, I just don't see an intraDT(East to West) purpose and the multi-modal idea was just to pick up that area with UTSA-DT/Market Sq., but you're right that is should not be used as a local system.
I think that cutting through the core by going south on Alamo, and then N. on Flores, E. on Pecan back N. on Broadway/Avenue B to Hildebrand would give development a boost where it is needed the most.

[alexjon]

Originally Posted by miaht82

You're right, I just don't see an intraDT(East to West) purpose and the multi-modal idea was just to pick up that area with UTSA-DT/Market Sq., but you're right that is should not be used as a local system.
I think that cutting through the core by going south on Alamo, and then N. on Flores, E. on Pecan back N. on Broadway/Avenue B to Hildebrand would give development a boost where it is needed the most.

I think they should keep it simple:
-Commerce/Market bus and streetcar lane (Alamodome/UTSA, Line "C/U")
-Broadway/Alamo bus and streetcar lane (River North/Hemisfair, Line "R/H")
-Market/Alamo/Commerce Streetcar transfer station

[Keep-SA-Lame]

I hope they don't just keep it in the core. Otherwise it could just become a tourist conveyance.

[miaht82]

Originally Posted by Keep-SA-Lame

I hope they don't just keep it in the core. Otherwise it could just become a tourist conveyance.

I disagree. It should only be inside of 410 and more specifically inside the Central Loop. It wouldn't make too much sense outside of 410, unless new growth, like Verano/TAMUSA, demands it.
With the grand opening of RN in a few days, the announcement of a streetcar would speed up any development that we might see take twice as long if there is no streetcar along the Broadway/Avenue B corridor.

[oldmanshirt]

Originally Posted by Keep-SA-Lame

I hope they don't just keep it in the core. Otherwise it could just become a tourist conveyance.

Only if they route it to be convenient to hotels and tourist attractions like the current "street car". Obviously there's a danger of this turning into something like that if poorly planned, so here's hoping they do the smart thing and try to coordinate with whatever street car proposal Alamo Hts can come up with, which would mean sending it up Broadway, a corridor that is and will be largely business and resident-driven, with the exception of those visitors who want to check out Breckenridge, the Witte, or the McNay. Unlike with the area around the CC or the Alamo, however, the majority of people frequenting the Broadway area (and thus using this street car line) will be local.

An East-West starter line make sense too, and Commerce/Market seems to be the most obvious to me, though it has vastly more potential to become a "tourist conveyance" since there isn't that much residential along that corridor. But isn't the question you always hear when they're proposing something downtown, "how will it attract more tourists?" Might be helpful in selling the idea to the community at large and ensuring success so that it will be easier to build future lines in conjunction with new residential development, say along Flores or Durango.

[sakyle04]

Originally Posted by oldmanshirt

Only if they route it to be convenient to hotels and tourist attractions like the current "street car". Obviously there's a danger of this turning into something like that if poorly planned, so here's hoping they do the smart thing and try to coordinate with whatever street car proposal Alamo Hts can come up with, which would mean sending it up Broadway, a corridor that is and will be largely business and resident-driven, with the exception of those visitors who want to check out Breckenridge, the Witte, or the McNay. Unlike with the area around the CC or the Alamo, however, the majority of people frequenting the Broadway area (and thus using this street car line) will be local.

An East-West starter line make sense too, and Commerce/Market seems to be the most obvious to me, though it has vastly more potential to become a "tourist conveyance" since there isn't that much residential along that corridor. But isn't the question you always hear when they're proposing something downtown, "how will it attract more tourists?" Might be helpful in selling the idea to the community at large and ensuring success so that it will be easier to build future lines in conjunction with new residential development, say along Flores or Durango.

I avoided mentioning Commerce because of the traffic implications.

Wouldn't this run on the street? Wouldn't traffic slow it down considerably?

[alexjon]

Why would you put it beyond downtown neighborhoods, anyway? That's why you go for the heavier light rail where you can easily put stops further away. With a Streetcar, you fill in gaps for downtown workers, residents and those who have multiple stops within the core. UTSA Downtown to the Alamodome, Hemisfair to The Pearl. SAC down to Blue Star. When you go further than that, you have far too many people living in and using the corridor, so you might as well go to a higher throughput.

Furthermore, San Antonio is known for slashing through traffic lanes. I figure they could easily drop a bus/streetcar-only lane on Market/Commerce. Look what they did to East Houston in 89. That street used to be the primary E/W route through the downtown core.

[oldmanshirt]

Originally Posted by sakyle04

I avoided mentioning Commerce because of the traffic implications.

Wouldn't this run on the street? Wouldn't traffic slow it down considerably?

I'm drawn to Commerce/Market because its bookended by major attractions/employment/education centers at both ends of downtown and because its wider than any of the E-W downtown streets I can think of that share those attributes. As for traffic, anything that slows down car traffic on those streets is a plus in my book, because they're not so great to cross on foot right now. I remember it sometimes taking a good five minutes to get from the CC to RM from street level, which is crazy. And I may be off on this, but isn't car traffic slowing down the street car is one of the built-in negatives about a street car, a sacrifice you make for getting "cheaper" rail?

[miaht82]

Originally Posted by oldmanshirt

I'm drawn to Commerce/Market because its bookended by major attractions/employment/education centers at both ends of downtown and because its wider than any of the E-W downtown streets I can think of that share those attributes. As for traffic, anything that slows down car traffic on those streets is a plus in my book, because they're not so great to cross on foot right now. I remember it sometimes taking a good five minutes to get from the CC to RM from street level, which is crazy. And I may be off on this, but isn't car traffic slowing down the street car is one of the built-in negatives about a street car, a sacrifice you make for getting "cheaper" rail?

Well that might change soon. the 5 lanes on commerce in front of the Marriott is now 3. The sidewalk was brought out in front of Fogo de Chao so that is the only section that is now 3 lanes but I wonder if that will change, that sidewalk on the side of Joskes is a bit crowded. I think Commerce should be 3 lanes all the way through. 2 car lanes, 1 bus lane, 1 bike lane.

[alexjon]

Originally Posted by oldmanshirt

And I may be off on this, but isn't car traffic slowing down the street car is one of the built-in negatives about a street car, a sacrifice you make for getting "cheaper" rail?

You are.

There's various levels of need and throughput for every mode, so "cheaper" is a misnomer in this sense. Also, a lot (well, one or two people in particular) argue that, "well, streetcars are stuck in traffic and are slower, which means they're not a valid mode". The problem with that is two-fold:

1) Not all corridors maintain the same traffic level after a revision
2) Not all corridors are as busy as one would imagine.

It's not car traffic that slows down the streetcar, it's the traffic policy for that particular road. A streetcar is fixed route, therefore, its traffic rules are a no-brainer. It moves forward or backward on the same route in the same place day after day. Buses, on the other hand, are given to a flexibility that makes them part of the traffic policy. In other words, wherever the people are funneled, the bus goes there.

Unless you make a specific traffic rule toward buses, like a bus only lane, the bus is a fleeting nebulous thing. It's a gap-filler in larger cities, holding up two ends of the same string, being a conveyance for those without cars or access to faster modes and those who choose not to drive cars.

Streetcars are fixed, and as such, become part of the landscape and when the requirements are there, they can be upgraded to add a lane restriction to speed operations. Some would argue that it's impossible to take away a lane for cars. That's a lie. It's done all the time, upgrading roads to suit different policies. You go from having an idyllic boulevard to a limited-stop cross-town route so quickly nowadays. Or perhaps the lane is removed from cross-town flow to become a turning lane, serving a different crowd. That lane, in essence, has been removed from one group's usage (in this case, cross-town users) and has been given to another group (local users). This changes the traffic patterns. Perhaps with that change, the crosstown bus becomes two routes, some runs splitting off on that turn into the different destination?

San Antonio is one of the few cities I know that has the chutzpah to take a lane away from everyone, unlike most cities which will cut down use for populations through simple revision. Remember, Hardberger put in his main plaza changes before Bloomberg even coughed up his plans for Broadway in NYC.

As to throughput and need, downtown San Antonio has the absolute baseline need for what a Streetcar is capable of. Downtown visitors number in the 10-20mil range a year, whereas yearly usage and throughput for a streetcar is best utilized between 5 and 25mil yearly passengers before you need to upgrade the ROW and perhaps capacity. The implications for this are numerous, since it can create the justification on its own for a Downtown-only system but it opens up the notion that, now that a cross-downtown route has been essentially lightened of cars, what can go in through that particular route?

This all brings up the idea of a hub-and-spoke system for light rail that utilizes the Streetcar ROW (Skoda and Siemens trams can operate in the same electric structure, so long as the railbed is deep enough), or upzoning the termini of the streetcar to allow for UTSA-DT campus structures like dorms and improved facilities to allow for a non-commuter campus structure.

If the question is "which mode is best", LRT is not the answer. Buses are not the answer. Commuter rail is not the answer. Streetcars are not the answer. Cars are not the answer. Bikes are not the answer.

All modes work, especially in a city with a varied topography and excellent infrastructure potential like San Antonio. The question should not be "which mode is the best" but "which modes". Then the answer is all of the above.

[oldmanshirt]

Thanks for that explanation, alexjon. As someone who won't take his first Transportation Planning class until the fall, I was trying in my own awkward way to articulate the fruitlessness of saying, "well, we can't put it here because the car traffic would slow it down too much" or vice versa. Obviously each form of transportation has to interact with others, sometimes resulting in negative effects for both. This doesn't mean that the best option should be ignored simply because there might be a few negative results.

Also, by "cheaper" I certainly wasn't commenting on the validity of the street car transit mode. I'm of the mind that few things could do a better job of transforming downtown at the street level.