Austin & San Antonio: - Moving freight line for commuter rail could cost up to $2.4B

[JACKinBeantown]

Follow the European model: put a 50¢ tax on gasoline and use it to finance the rail system. It works in two ways: 1) it provides finances that the Bush administration is trying to divert away from trains, 2) gives people the added monetary incentive to finally get out of their cars and take the train, then walk a few blocks to their destination at the other end. Oh, which leads to #3) walk more... weigh less.

[Trae]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

The actual line itself isn't all that expensive, just $600 million. The biggest part would be having UP move their tracks east. I wonder though, couldn't they build the rail near 130? There's already a corridor in place with it, so it would make sense.

That would miss places like New Braunfels and San Marcos though right?

[ahealy]

I am all for this. It's ironic this is subject for discussion today, Because I'm taking the amtrak to visit family in San Antonio from ATX this evening. I live downtown so the station is just a rocks throw from my place.

I gotta admit, I would love to see a rail line go back & forth more than ONCE a day. Wishful thinking?

[Jeeper]

Any way some of you guys can pull some strings and have that line extended to the Amarillo-Lubbock corridor? I love visiting SA, but I hate making the long drive. What's another few billion dollars anyway?

[Schertz1]

Originally Posted by Trae

No it doesn't. Houston has more growth than SA's metro and Austin's metro combined. It's only that close this year because of the Katrina effect (everyone leaving back to NO). Check for yourself: http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/popm00/

My mistake on this years figures, I thought San Antonio/Austin was slightly higher than Houston. Still, the rate is higher for 2007. I don't think Katrina had anything to do with the 2007 numbers. Dallas, San Antonio, Houston and many other cities had evacuees and the numbers, in Texas, only fell in Houston.

Originally Posted by alexjon

I like the line about being more competitive with Houston and DFW, as though they compete with each other all the time.

I don't understand. Does Dallas compete with Houston? San Antonio with Austin or Dallas? Do all the major metros compete with each other? Is the competition only on specific days, like Mondays for DFW and Houston or San Antonio and Austin on Saturdays?

My point is more connectivity between San Antonio and Austin would be a catalyst for the area to behave more like the region of almost 4 million it is.

And yes, an area as dynamic as San Antonio/Austin would be more competitive with DFW and Houston.

[Trae]

The evacuees Houston got were a lot different than the ones in the other cities. Houston got the most out of all of Texas, and most of them started moving back the next year. Yes, Katrina had something to do with the numbers (July 06-July 07). There is no way only 20,000 or so people moved into Houston domestically. People moving back to Louisiana from both storms skewed the numbers. And rate? Going by rate, Melissa, Texas is the fastest growing city in Texas.

And San Antonio/Austin together still aren't on Houston or Dallas' level. A rail line would be great between them, but that doesn't put them on those two city's level. And the region of 3.5 million today does not compete with a Houston or Dallas, who are both larger and growing faster than it. Commuter rail will definitely help in the area becoming more attractive, but the two powerhouses in Texas are building commuter rail lines, too (or about to and not as expensive ).

[Schertz1]

Originally Posted by Trae

The evacuees Houston got were a lot different than the ones in the other cities. Houston got the most out of all of Texas, and most of them started moving back the next year. Yes, Katrina had something to do with the numbers (July 06-July 07). There is no way only 20,000 or so people moved into Houston domestically. People moving back to Louisiana from both storms skewed the numbers. And rate? Going by rate, Melissa, Texas is the fastest growing city in Texas.

And San Antonio/Austin together still aren't on Houston or Dallas' level. A rail line would be great between them, but that doesn't put them on those two city's level. And the region of 3.5 million today does not compete with a Houston or Dallas, who are both larger and growing faster than it. Commuter rail will definitely help in the area becoming more attractive, but the two powerhouses in Texas are building commuter rail lines, too (or about to and not as expensive ).

You have no proof people moving back to Louisiana caused Houston's 07 numbers. You are also wrong about the pop. of the San Antonio/Austin region. San Antonio is around 2.1 million alone and Austin is about 1.6. You tend to twist the posts of others, I said San Antonio and Austin would better compete with DFW and Houston if they were marketed as one area. I also live in Houston and you can believe me, it is nothing special.

[Trae]

Originally Posted by Schertz1

You have no proof people moving back to Louisiana caused Houston's 07 numbers. You are also wrong about the pop. of the San Antonio/Austin region. San Antonio is around 2.1 million alone and Austin is about 1.6. You tend to twist the posts of others, I said San Antonio and Austin would better compete with DFW and Houston if were marketed as one area. I also live in Houston and you can believe me, it is nothing special.

Using 2007's Census, SA is at 1.9 million and Austin at 1.5 million.

And I could care less what you think about Houston. Say what you want. It may not be nothing special to you, just like SA really isn't for me. Personal preference.

And I may not have all the facts in the world to prove the Louisiana thing, but Houston doesn't add the most jobs in the nation for the second year (100K I think again) in a row with only 20,000K moving in domestically.

[oldmanshirt]

Any notion that Austin/SA combined can rival DFW or Houston is a stretch, to say the least. If you want to compare them with other metros, think Denver-Boulder-CO Spgs or Minneapolis-St Paul. Even Seattle would be a stretch. Of course, this is assuming you can get SA and Austin to work together in the first place. While both do have attributes that compliment the other, they are two very separate, very independent areas, so much so that they even claim to belong to different regions of the state, despite being only about an hour apart. One commuter rail line, no matter how many billions it costs, isnt going to change that overnight, if ever.

[sakyle04]

San Antonio angle here, with maps: http://blogs.mysanantonio.com/weblogs/traffic/archives/2008/07/trains_can_be_r.html

[KeepSanAntonioLame]

How does this affect freight going into San Antonio or Austin?

[alexjon]

Originally Posted by oldmanshirt

Any notion that Austin/SA combined can rival DFW or Houston is a stretch, to say the least. If you want to compare them with other metros, think Denver-Boulder-CO Spgs or Minneapolis-St Paul. Even Seattle would be a stretch. Of course, this is assuming you can get SA and Austin to work together in the first place. While both do have attributes that compliment the other, they are two very separate, very independent areas, so much so that they even claim to belong to different regions of the state, despite being only about an hour apart. One commuter rail line, no matter how many billions it costs, isnt going to change that overnight, if ever.

Austin/SA don't quite have the infrastructure or business environment to rival places like Houston, DFW or Seattle-Tacoma or Minny. Denver is very appropriate, however. They're starting on a 10-20 year growth cycle that should kick off when the economy improves, and a lot of that is based on improving their local transportation and grooming business corridors intelligently.

That's assuming, of course, that they work together.

[Schertz1]

Originally Posted by oldmanshirt

Any notion that Austin/SA combined can rival DFW or Houston is a stretch, to say the least. If you want to compare them with other metros, think Denver-Boulder-CO Spgs or Minneapolis-St Paul. Even Seattle would be a stretch. Of course, this is assuming you can get SA and Austin to work together in the first place. While both do have attributes that compliment the other, they are two very separate, very independent areas, so much so that they even claim to belong to different regions of the state, despite being only about an hour apart. One commuter rail line, no matter how many billions it costs, isnt going to change that overnight, if ever.

My post did not say it would rival DFW or Houston, I said it would be closer, more competitive. I also wouldn't begin to compare this hypothetical region to Denver, M/SP or Seattle, all of which are basically slow growth areas. San Antonio/Austin, IMO is already better. I also think the next five years will really show the difference.

[alexjon]

Originally Posted by Schertz1

My post did not say it would rival DFW or Houston, I said it would be closer, more competitive. I also wouldn't begin to compare this hypothetical region to Denver, M/SP or Seattle, all of which are basically slow growth areas. San Antonio/Austin, IMO is already better. I also think the next five years will really show the difference.

You're basing this on population, obviously, since economically, SA/A as a region pale in comparison to the other examples. It would take an explosive amount of economic growth to boost them up to the level of M/SP or Seattle, but that won't happen-- not with things like AT&T's departure.

Having lived in Seattle for a while, I can't help but laugh.

[Trae]

Originally Posted by Schertz1

My post did not say it would rival DFW or Houston, I said it would be closer, more competitive. I also wouldn't begin to compare this hypothetical region to Denver, M/SP or Seattle, all of which are basically slow growth areas. San Antonio/Austin, IMO is already better. I also think the next five years will really show the difference.

You're just going off population. Phoenix is growing faster than Chicago, but which would you consider more important? Population growth isn't everything. Hell, compare the companies in each city. Combined, Austin/SA have what, Whole Foods, Valero, USAA, Tesero, and Dell has the only national companies? In Seattle you have Starbucks, Microsoft, and Nordstom (top of my head), in Minny you have Target, Best Buy, and General Mills (top of my head). ANd guess what Denver/Seattle/Minny have that A/SA doesn't? Inner city light rail (well, at least Austin has some kind of rail coming forward this Fall).

[alexjon]

Originally Posted by Trae

You're just going off population. Phoenix is growing faster than Chicago, but which would you consider more important? Population growth isn't everything. Hell, compare the companies in each city. Combined, Austin/SA have what, Whole Foods, Valero, USAA, Tesero, and Dell has the only national companies? In Seattle you have Starbucks, Microsoft, and Nordstom (top of my head), in Minny you have Target, Best Buy, and General Mills (top of my head). ANd guess what Denver/Seattle/Minny have that A/SA doesn't? Inner city light rail (well, at least Austin has some kind of rail coming forward this Fall).

In terms of Seattle-area corps: Microsoft, Nordstrom, Starbucks, WaMu, Paccar, Weyerhauser, the U.S. HQs of Nintendo and T-Mobile, Safeco, Amazon.com, Costco.

Seattle is totally expanding its inner-city rail, too. Our regional light rail starts next year. And we've had commuter rail since 2001.

Minneapolis is way up there, too.

[Trae]

Exactly. Population isn't everything. The commuter rail will definitely help the A/SA region and maybe companies would want to locate there solely because of the rail. But to say it pushed A/SA to Houston or DFW's level of competition is not true. First, A/SA needs to compete with the likes of Minny and Denver.

[Schertz1]

Originally Posted by alexjon

You're basing this on population, obviously, since economically, SA/A as a region pale in comparison to the other examples. It would take an explosive amount of economic growth to boost them up to the level of M/SP or Seattle, but that won't happen-- not with things like AT&T's departure.

Having lived in Seattle for a while, I can't help but laugh.

That's your opinion, too bad the Department of Commerce web site disagrees. If you look at the Gross Metropolitan Product of these cities, you will see San Antonio/Austin is growing faster, by rate or real numbers, than them all. And as of 2004 SA/A has surpassed Denver.

Several companies have moved or announced plans to move to San Antonio in the last few months. There is much more happening here, business wise then AT&T relocating. What about Boeing and the Sonics, are their departures from Seattle some indicator of thats city's strength?


http://www.bea.gov/regional/gdpmetro/action.cfm

[Schertz1]

Originally Posted by Trae

You're just going off population. Phoenix is growing faster than Chicago, but which would you consider more important? Population growth isn't everything. Hell, compare the companies in each city. Combined, Austin/SA have what, Whole Foods, Valero, USAA, Tesero, and Dell has the only national companies? In Seattle you have Starbucks, Microsoft, and Nordstom (top of my head), in Minny you have Target, Best Buy, and General Mills (top of my head). ANd guess what Denver/Seattle/Minny have that A/SA doesn't? Inner city light rail (well, at least Austin has some kind of rail coming forward this Fall).

NuStar, Rush, Clear Channel. AT&T doesn't even move until years end, so AT&T as well.

[Trae]

But AT&T is moving, so why would you still count it?

And you have to add in a A/SA in order to beat just Denver (meaning, just one metro area). That should tell you right there. I'll give you Boeing, but the Sonics was a horrible example. Horrible.