SAN ANTONIO | City and Metro Transportation Thread

[Keep-SA-Lame]

Originally Posted by aggie2008

@Keep-SA-Lame Totally agree! If this can get built out to actual BRT standards with increased frequency and extended hours it would be amazing! 10 minute frequency is pretty amazing. Hoping the plans don't get watered down too much. It really needs lane separation, traffic light priority and off board fare collection to make it work. I understand the need to skip dedicated center running lanes in some portions of routes, just hope that doesn't mean they give up on off board fare sales as that really slows buses down.

Looking at Via's plans here:
https://keepsamoving.com/advanced-rapid-transit/#resources

It's going to be 100% dedicated bus lanes from the airport all the way down San Pedro through downtown (including the narrow stretch of San Pedro in Monte Vista) South of downtown, when it hits St Mary's/Roosevelt it will be a shared lane to the terminus at Steves. Which is lame, it would be better if it was 100% bus lane. But I guess Roosevelt is never particularly congested so it matters less than the San Pedro stretch. It's hard to tell from the information that's been published so far but I think all stations will have pre-boarding ticketing, even in the shared lane sections (though not certain about that). Haven't read anything about signal light priority at all, but I agree it's one of the keys to making this successful.

Edit: I was too focused on the PDF, the info graphic thing on the page itself says there will be "transit signal priority" (whatever that actually means will be determined I guess)

[Montirob]

Originally Posted by Keep-SA-Lame

Looking at Via's plans here:
https://keepsamoving.com/advanced-rapid-transit/#resources

It's going to be 100% dedicated bus lanes from the airport all the way down San Pedro through downtown (including the narrow stretch of San Pedro in Monte Vista) South of downtown, when it hits St Mary's/Roosevelt it will be a shared lane to the terminus at Steves. Which is lame, it would be better if it was 100% bus lane. But I guess Roosevelt is never particularly congested so it matters less than the San Pedro stretch. It's hard to tell from the information that's been published so far but I think all stations will have pre-boarding ticketing, even in the shared lane sections (though not certain about that). Haven't read anything about signal light priority at all, but I agree it's one of the keys to making this successful.

Edit: I was too focused on the PDF, the info graphic thing on the page itself says there will be "transit signal priority" (whatever that actually means will be determined I guess)

I'll believe it when I see it.

VIA promised the same thing on Fredericksburg Rd years ago for the Primo route. I attended every community meeting for 2 years and remember when they announced near the end of design that they were dropping the dedicated lanes. Then... during construction and after purchasing buses that have multiple doors for quicker boarding, they said that the preboarding ticket idea was being put on hold (never to return unfortunately). The Real Time Route Info was nice... until they removed it from the "stations" about a year later.

I would love to see real BRT in San Antonio, but unfortunately the power brokers in the city and state prefer 1950's style roads. Hopefully I'm wrong with the San Pedro line.

[Keep-SA-Lame]

Originally Posted by Montirob

I'll believe it when I see it.

VIA promised the same thing on Fredericksburg Rd years ago for the Primo route. I attended every community meeting for 2 years and remember when they announced near the end of design that they were dropping the dedicated lanes. Then... during construction and after purchasing buses that have multiple doors for quicker boarding, they said that the preboarding ticket idea was being put on hold (never to return unfortunately). The Real Time Route Info was nice... until they removed it from the "stations" about a year later.

I would love to see real BRT in San Antonio, but unfortunately the power brokers in the city and state prefer 1950's style roads. Hopefully I'm wrong with the San Pedro line.

I think this time is different. For one thing, to access these Federal funds, my understanding is that it does need to be a "real" BRT line (by American standards). Now maybe they drop the whole thing and get money from somewhere else, but at least on the path they're on now it has to be real BRT to get funded.

[aggie2008]

@Montirob we were probably at some of the same meetings re: Fred Road. Good plans that got watered down. The only thing that stayed was the huge stations that cost a ton and provide little to no shelter because they are so high So I definitely share skepticism about the plans. Hoping for the best though!

I'm not sure my interpretation of the key in the federal funding document is correct but it looks like roughly half of the NS route will be dedicated center running lanes, 40% will be bus lanes on the edge (which is what is currently downtown and ignored by pretty much everyone), and 10% will be mixed traffic. I think in the center lane part it will be easy to create stations with a ticketed gate area. I have my doubts on what that would look like if you are taking part of an existing sidewalk in the CBD to create the same situation. Much less in mixed traffic. Maybe they are planning to acquire land around the stations? Now, I don't think you *have* to have ticketed areas (you can rely on random on board enforcement officers) but I don't think VIA will do that... so then you have to revert to the driver doing it which immensely slows things down.

[Keep-SA-Lame]

I think the main people who ignore the bus lanes downtown are the hotel drop offs. On San Pedro that won't be a problem. And to be fair to people who ignore the bus lane, it's very poorly marked downtown right now. If they wind up putting down as much red paint as they are indicating in the published planning documents, I think think it will be obvious to most what the lane is for. But we'll see I guess, it would clearly be much better with a dedicated lane the whole way.

Thinking about further BRT corridors that would be wide enough to allow a full bus lane, it's remarkable how many of them are TxDOT "highways". Culebra/Bandera, Fredericksburg past Hildebrand, Broadway/Austin Highway,Military, Nogalitos, Roosevelt south of Steves... all state highways and are probably out of bounds for real transit apart from more frequent buses or a watered down Primo thing. That's almost all the ~100FT+ ROWs inside the loop, all of which would be great LRT/BRT corridors. All are doomed to languish under state control. How depressing.

[aggie2008]

If y'all are interested in more details about what could happen along San Pedro and in transit related land use there are couple of somewhat recent documents that I think are pretty cool...
1. Info about SA Corridors including potential station info (really long but thorough): https://www.sanantonio.gov/Portals/0/Fil...s/SACorridors/StrategicFrameworkPlan.pdf
2. Transit Supportive Land Use plan (shorter but still very informative):
https://www.sanantonio.gov/Portals/0/Fil...SACorridors/TransitSupportiveLandUse.pdf

A lot of what is in these documents relies on changes to the UDC and zoning for properties around stations. San Antonio just did a refresh of the UDC. I wonder how many of the recommendations made it through...

[aggie2008]

Well it seems like most of the changes to include more zoning types were withdrawn before they were actually heard. Too bad... If you look for "Planning Department" in this doc you can see them.

https://docsonline.sanantonio.gov/DSDUploads/Proposed2020&2021UDCAmendmentsMasterList.pdf

My guess is that the NIMBY organization Tier One Neighborhood Coalition had some hand in that.

[Montirob]

Originally Posted by aggie2008

Well it seems like most of the changes to include more zoning types were withdrawn before they were actually heard. Too bad... If you look for "Planning Department" in this doc you can see them.

https://docsonline.sanantonio.gov/DSDUploads/Proposed2020&2021UDCAmendmentsMasterList.pdf

My guess is that the NIMBY organization Tier One Neighborhood Coalition had some hand in that.

The city does have IDZ zoning, though, which allows mixed-use development. It can also significantly reduce (or even remove) setback and parking requirements, which can make for a more Transit-Oriented-Development.

An IDZ request is almost always on the Zoning agenda. For example, this week there is a request for an IDZ development to include 37 dwelling units, a neighborhood recreational facility, and a church. It's not on a bus route, but the option at least exists for some TOD projects.

Source is the City's PrimeGov Portal which is an awesome resource for Zoning, Planning, and HDRC projects: https://sanantonio.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=41532

[Keep-SA-Lame]

If we don't IDZ all of San Pedro, the value of this project is significantly diminished.

[aggie2008]

Yep, fully realize that the city does have IDZ zoning... and 3 "intensity" levels of it. And that a lot of people hate it because it is removes a ton of restrictions on development. For transit I really like that IDZ changes parking requirements, especially if implemented next to corridors like San Pedro.

It just seemed like the city was working to specifically add various levels of mixed use zoning that would have met a need for slightly more tailored zoning for various settings (urban, neighborhood, regional center, etc). All of this was supposed to align with a decade long process of SA Tomorrow that refreshed neighborhood plans. That process incorporated feedback from many stakeholders and industry/city planning experts. Mixed use zoning seemed like a middle ground that allowed more intense development while still keeping some restrictions that might have made people concerned with "neighborhood character" happy. Then again a lot of people are probably going to hate all change so might not be worth attempting to compromise

[Keep-SA-Lame]

https://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/n...2fP5rHUIj7-xZfz2IgsEKVhG7SO-Q8XXb45mcnyE

VIA Metropolitan is closer to moving its Advanced Rapid Transit plan from the drawing board to dirt turning.

The San Antonio agency has cleared a major environmental hurdle, securing federal approval under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 that could allow it to begin operating an initial north-south route by 2027.

The NEPA clearance is a critical step that allows VIA to proceed with its plan to develop the region’s first rapid transit corridor.

The project is part of VIA’s Keep San Antonio Moving Plan that was approved by voters in 2020. The NEPA process began in 2021 and included significant technical analysis and public engagement.

“This is a major milestone in the journey to deliver on our commitment to this community, which said yes to investing in transit improvements,” VIA President and CEO Jeffrey Arndt said.

VIA had already secured a $158.1 million Federal Transit Administration grant as part of the 2023 Omnibus Appropriations Bill approved by Congress in 2022 that will help fund the ART plan.

Meanwhile, the Federal Transit Administration has applied a Categorical Exclusion to the project, meaning that the construction and operation of the transit corridor would have minimal impact and no adverse effect on its surroundings.

The 12-mile ART route, which will be known as the VIA Rapid Green Line, will connect some of the city’s largest job centers, stretching from an area near San Antonio International Airport along the San Pedro Avenue corridor to downtown and points further south.

A proposed second line would connect San Antonio’s East and West sides. VIA is currently in the process of identifying improvements and funding sources to develop the project.

“The ART network has opened up federal funding that we’ve never before been able to access,” Arndt said. “VIA is seeking $144.7 million in federal funding for the east-west project with a targeted service date of 2029.”

Construction could begin on the VIA Rapid Green Line could begin by 2025.

Hadn't seen it called the Green Line before, I think that's new.

[JACKinBeantown]

^^^ Great news!

[jaga185]

City pursues funding to address barriers between Downtown and East Side

The city of San Antonio wants to tap into federal resources to seek ways to remove geographic and economic barriers between downtown and the East Side.

In a presentation to the City Council's Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Tuesday, Assistant City Manager Lori Houston said the city would seek funds through the U.S. Department of Transportation's Reconnecting Communities and Neighborhoods grant program.

The $2.96 million grant the city is applying for would go toward commissioning a planning study and engineering analysis on how best to rectify historic inequities between East Side neighborhoods and downtown San Antonio. The focus is on Interstate 37, constructed in the 1960s and 1970s, which effectively isolated the two geographic areas from each other.

Houston said the focus in this early stage is to get those studies in motion to inform the public and various stakeholders, receive feedback from those groups and eventually apply for capital construction grants through the same program with a detailed project in mind.

"We've identified that we want to develop alternatives to help reconnect downtown and the Near East Side by minimizing or retrofitting that barrier ... and we would do that through that community planning process, that strategic plan and the development of a conceptual plan," she said.

Keep up with the latest San Antonio headlines by signing up here for SABJ newsletters.

If accepted, the City Council would have to agree on how to pay for 20% of the estimated costs for the study and community engagement efforts, about $740,000.

In the outreach process, Houston said the city would have to engage with the landowners around I-37, including the city, Hemisfair, the Texas Department of Transportation and UTSA. There would also be extensive efforts to connect with neighborhood associations and community leaders.

The grant funds for the community planning stage can also go toward developing anti-displacement policies and environmental impact studies, according to the U.S. DOT.

District 2 Councilman Jalen McKee-Rodriguez, who represents the East Side, said the community is in favor of this type of investment, but they are wary of any adverse effects that may follow.

"What that means, then, is that there's going to be major changes to communities that are already vulnerable, and this is near a lot of really vulnerable neighborhoods that have already experienced gentrification," he said. "So I just want us to be cautious in what ends up being the reality from the intent."

He also stressed that potential stakeholder groups are comprised of longtime residents and not "folk who stand to profit."

Bury it

[Keep-SA-Lame]

Kind of mysterious, this could be anything from a full freeway cap to like better lighting and a mural lol.

I would prefer that we just demo 37/281 inside 410 and spend the Federal money on transit. But what do I know.

[JACKinBeantown]

Originally Posted by jaga185

City pursues funding to address barriers between Downtown and East Side



Bury it

I agree. Coincidentally, I drove the entire length of Boston's Big Dig in each direction today. Traffic moved just fine in both directions and up above people were enjoying a nice park.

[Spoiler]

Originally Posted by Keep-SA-Lame

I would prefer that we just demo 37/281 inside 410 and spend the Federal money on transit. But what do I know.

Same (assuming you mean turn it into a surface street), but spare the 281 bit over the Olmos Basin north of the dam for flood reasons.

[Keep-SA-Lame]

Originally Posted by Spoiler

Same (assuming you mean turn it into a surface street), but spare the 281 bit over the Olmos Basin north of the dam for flood reasons.

Eh, I think the whole thing can go. 281 is particularly egregious because it brings thousands of cars into Brackenridge and Olmos Parks that don't need to be there, bringing noise and particulate pollution with them. Whether it's on a boulevard or a highway, it's all bad.

[JACKinBeantown]

Sadly, the truth is that San Antonio will never have a rail based (or even dedicated lane) mass transit system in my lifetime. It's a car city in a state run by politicians who are controlled by oil companies and elected by people who have likely never even ridden on a good mass transit system and will angrily vote against anyone who even brings it up. So any feasible solution is going to involve either burying the highway or some other end result that keeps the highway.

I'm not trying to stop anyone from stating their dreams, but just realize that they're probably not going to happen.

That said, my vote is to bury the highway.

[Keep-SA-Lame]

Originally Posted by JACKinBeantown

Sadly, the truth is that San Antonio will never have a rail based (or even dedicated lane) mass transit system in my lifetime. It's a car city in a state run by politicians who are controlled by oil companies and elected by people who have likely never even ridden on a good mass transit system and will angrily vote against anyone who even brings it up. So any feasible solution is going to involve either burying the highway or some other end result that keeps the highway.

I'm not trying to stop anyone from stating their dreams, but just realize that they're probably not going to happen.

That said, my vote is to bury the highway.

Oh yeah I mean I never said it was going to happen in my lifetime lol. But if we were to take down one highway completely (and I don't think losing one highway is totally out of the question this century), make it 281.

[bosshaa5]

Originally Posted by JACKinBeantown

Sadly, the truth is that San Antonio will never have a rail based (or even dedicated lane) mass transit system in my lifetime. It's a car city in a state run by politicians who are controlled by oil companies and elected by people who have likely never even ridden on a good mass transit system and will angrily vote against anyone who even brings it up. So any feasible solution is going to involve either burying the highway or some other end result that keeps the highway.

I'm not trying to stop anyone from stating their dreams, but just realize that they're probably not going to happen.

That said, my vote is to bury the highway.

VIA has a funded and designed Advance Rapid Transit line going north-south from the airport to Highway 90. So unless your super old, you will get a "dedicated lane for mass transit" in your lifetime. Also, VIA already has a grant application in with the federal government for funding of an east-west line along Commerce Street.

There are a lot of conditions to consider when it comes to rail and mass transit in general, and I agree San Antonio has a long way to go. However, I think the trend is heading in the direction of rail/mass transit. There has been a lot of press about the subject recently and there is a new advocacy group in town called SART ( San Antonians for Rail Transit) making a lot of noise.