No Streetcar for San Antonio

After being in office just one week, San Antonio’s new mayor, Ivy Taylor, proposed Monday that the city withdraw the $32 million it had promised to build a new $280 million, 5.9-mile streetcar line. Moreover, she persuaded Bexar County Judge Nelson Wolff, the region’s leading streetcar proponent, to join her in declaring the streetcar plan dead. Wolff has previously said that he is too busy waging a re-election campaign against a streetcar opponent to campaign in favor of the streetcar plan.


A planner’s fantasy of what a streetcar would look like near the Alamo in San Antonio.

The announcements come amid controversy over an initiative petition submitted by streetcar opponents asking that voters be allowed to approve or reject the plan in November. The city has tentatively rejected most of the signatures, saying they were improperly collected. The petitioners have a legal opinion saying the city is reading the law incorrectly. The new mayor may be hoping that, in announcing the plan is dead, the demand for a vote will go away. If the city rejects the petitions now and opponents go to court, the measure may have to go to voters in a later election.

The men’s formula is trusted across the world but now struggle with, embrace or grudgingly accept the fact that we live in has viagra price uk turned andropause into a man triggered condition. The market is flooded with check over here buy cheap levitra numerous medications which ensure a healthy erection for pleasurable intercourse. That is why, most of the people look viagra 100mg tablet http://www.devensec.com/rules-regs/decregs1008.html excited to get a hard on when he consumes this medication. These also tadalafil buy cheap help get rid of tiredness and fatigue and can also cure insomnia and headaches. Of course, no rail plan ever seems to die. Kansas City has voted down light rail eight times. (It passed one once, but the plan proved financially infeasible, and when a more feasible plan was put before voters, they rejected it.) This cycle will continue until every major American city has burdened its taxpayers with obsolete rail systems or until Congress stops giving transit agencies incentives to choose the high-cost alternatives in any transit corridor. In the meantime, we can hope that San Antonio streetcar opponents keep vigilant against attempts to revive the plan.

Meanwhile, the recently opened streetcar line in Salt Lake City is proving to be a great success–if success is defined as attracting 26 percent of predicted ridership. Salt Lake City has become known as the urban area that leads the nation in per capita transit spending, with light rail, commuter trains, and now a streetcar.


Capital cost through 2012: $1.7 billion. Weekday round trips in 2012: 3,268.

All that spending isn’t accomplishing much. For example, Utah Transit, whose service area (including Salt Lake, Ogden, and Provo-Orem) covers nearly a million commuters, has spent more than $1.7 billion starting commuter trains that, in 2012, carried an average of less than 3,300 commuters per day. What a great success!

Tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

About The Antiplanner

The Antiplanner is a forester and economist with more than fifty years of experience critiquing government land-use and transportation plans.

25 Responses to No Streetcar for San Antonio

  1. metrosucks says:

    Kansas City has voted down light rail eight times. (It passed one once, but the plan proved financially infeasible, and when a more feasible plan was put before voters, they rejected it.)

    Proof positive that planners and rail “advocates” don’t care what residents think, or want; they just hope to sneak the scam by the skin of its teeth, and then loudly claim they now have a “mandate”. Then after that, corrupt profit and rail empire-building opportunities (because the transit authority (sic) will scream that the boondoggle will be more successful if only they expand its service area) will go on forever.

  2. gilfoil says:

    Sounds like a good opportunity to advocate in San Antonio for the Antiplanner’s preferred Bus Rapid Transit alternative, which takes lanes away from cars and dedicates them to bus-only lanes. Or is this one of the posts where we don’t care about improving transit service at all, because no one rides it?

  3. sprawl says:

    Before the Max line was built in my neighborhood we had a express but bus that my dad use to ride that took him to his job in about 10 minutes once he boarded with no transfers driving in traffic with the cars and trucks.

    The replacement was the Metropolitan area express or the Max light rail line that with transfer takes around 30 to 40 minutes.

  4. Frank says:

    gillfoil is trollin’ hard

  5. MJ says:

    I’m guessing Wolff and his cronies are regretting spending so much effort trying to suppress the referendum petition. It looks like the referendum is the only thing that could conceivably save the project at this point. Oh, the irony.

  6. MJ says:

    Or is this one of the posts where we don’t care about improving transit service at all, because no one rides it?

    Why not just increase bus service levels? Why the need to build something just for the sake of building it?

  7. gilfoil says:

    MJ, I recommend you read the Antiplanner’s PDF from yesterday’s post, which explains the improvements that BRT has over non-BRT bus systems.

  8. msetty says:

    Department of corrections. The Frontrunner commuter train in Utah is now carrying about 15,000 daily passengers, or nearly 4.5 million boardings per year.

    Getting basic facts straight, as opposed to “facts” resulting from ideological blinkers like the belief that automobiles aren’t heavily subsidized, increases credibility.

    Contrary to what some people here may believe, I really don’t care that much about the streetcar in San Antonio. First, I’m not that familiar with the project, but more importantly for “the vast streetcar conspiracy,” any federal funds that might have been available for it will now be spent in places where politicians have the foresight to improve transit.

    The more interesting question in San Antonio may be if the local politicians are willing to pony up the $1 billion or more a new football stadium for the Raiders, if the deal for a transfer for Oakland goes through. The thing to follow in such matters is who benefits and why, and how powerful they are, as the real political process operates as outlined in The Dictators Handbook.

    If San Antonio is like most large regions, the politicians may very willingly offer huge subsidies to the Raiders in order to salve their egos and meet the demands of their most well-heeled supporters–as opposed to transit improvements that might actually benefit average citizens and small business.

    At least in the “liberal” Bay Area where voters generally are willing to support transit improvements financially, the new Giants stadium was paid for by the private sector. San Francisco voters balked at subsidizing a Candlestick Park replacement, thus the 49ers move to Santa Clara. I don’t know how much money the City of Santa Clara has put towards the new 49ers football stadium, but the private sector paid the lions share of the cost. This is a strong contrast to most of Texas, where “free enterprise” and “business friendly” are the standard mantra, but Dallas-Fort Worth taxpayers also helped subsidize the early career of one George W. Bush.

  9. gilfoil says:

    A resounding success for Buenos Aires’ BRT system:

    http://www.streetfilms.org/buenos-aires-building-a-people-friendly-city/

    ” More than 650,000 people now ride MetroBus every day, and it has cut commutes in the city center from 50-55 minutes to an incredible 18 minutes.”

    For those who’ve read the Antiplanner’s paper on the benefits of BRT, of course, this success is no surprise. It’s time to put the paper’s ideas into practice in San Antonio – perhaps with some modification to increase the amount of dedicated lanes beyond the downtown core, like the Buenos Aires system has.

  10. Dave Brough says:

    On MSetty’s Department of corrections claim that “The Frontrunner commuter train in Utah is now carrying about 15,000 daily passengers…”,
    You’d never know it by this part-time northern Utah resident and occasional RearRunner rider. As a retiree, I don’t need, nor am I dumb enough to ride it in peak times, but the times that I have ridden it, you could swing a dead cat by the tail and not come in contact with a living human. I have been on that train when five people got off at the end of a run, three of which were UTA employees.
    Recall, too, the Antiplanner’s comments on how rail often gets riders: at the expense of bus riders. Here’s one quote…
    “Scott Taylor used to ride an express bus from near his Cedar Hills home in Utah County directly to the front door of his job in downtown Salt Lake City.
    “It took about an hour,” he says. UTA eliminated that express bus. He now would need to walk farther to a neighborhood bus, take it to FrontRunner, transfer in Salt Lake City to the airport TRAX, and walk farther than before to work. “It would take about two hours. So I dropped out of UTA.”
    He joined a private van pool that takes about 45 minutes. ” http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56456927-78/bus-frontrunner-lake-rail.html.csp
    I would also point out that UTA would count each time a rider got on or off as a separate trip, meaning that in one day, UTA could count a single rider eight times. MSetty’s 15,000 riders may actually only be the 3,000 humans referenced by the Antiplanner.

  11. metrosucks says:

    Dave,

    that’s exactly right. I’ve driven through Salt Lake City many times and been greeted by the empty platforms on the UTA.

    I would also point out that UTA would count each time a rider got on or off as a separate trip,

    That’s why planners insist on “passenger trips” instead of miles, because they can use funny accounting like that to inflate numbers grossly and make boondoggle rail projects look a lot better than they really are.

    [msetty]Contrary to what some people here may believe, I really don’t care that much about the streetcar in San Antonio.

    That’s odd Mike, I remember you angrily ranting that streetcar opponents in San Antonio weren’t playing “fair” and you hoped the project managed to sneak thru regardless of what local residents thought.

  12. Frank says:

    “any federal funds that might have been available for it will now be spent in places where politicians have the foresight to improve transit.”

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. I haven’t laughed that hard since 1986.

    politicians…

    with…

    foresight.

    OMG.

    Improve transit! l0lz

    Of course Michael Setty doesn’t care about this streetcar…because he doesnt’t know enough about it. Unlike the SLUT, Seattle’s streetcar that he erroneously claimed half of the capital cost was paid for by Amazon.

    What a joker! WHAT A BLOWHARD!

  13. MJ says:

    MJ, I recommend you read the Antiplanner’s PDF from yesterday’s post, which explains the improvements that BRT has over non-BRT bus systems.

    Again, what is the existing problem that BRT (or a streetcar) is needed to solve? This entire project sounds very much like a solution in search of a problem.

  14. MJ says:

    Getting basic facts straight, as opposed to “facts” resulting from ideological blinkers like the belief that automobiles aren’t heavily subsidized, increases credibility.

    I must have missed the part where you provided “facts” on this subject.

  15. msetty says:

    Some of these comments show how ignorant many bloviators here are of how transit actually works. Here’s something I think even kindergarteners would understand, though I’m not so sure the peanut gallery here will.

    Each trip made on Front Runner has both a “boarding” and “alighting.” What UTA reports to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) are “boardings,” e.g., “passenger trips.” The Frontrunner counts are consistent with the way transit ridership is required to be counted under FTA’s “National Transit Database” (NTD) requirements, or they’d see their money held up. And don’t tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about. I have prepared dozens of NTD reports over the years, so I completely know NTD requirements ad nauseum.

    I see Frank is just as much the blowhard as ever. But he can’t ever admit that I corrected one minor factual error many months ago (that’s ALL the businesses in the area paying a levy for the SLUT, not just Amazon, bonehead). Please do everyone a favor and STFU unless you actually can tell the truth, if you can ever figure out whatever that is.

    As for the streetcar in San Antonio, Metrosucks, what weak, vacillating politicians do is unpredictable, as are wildcards such as the former mayor decamping to Washington, D.C. No big point, even though you think so. I look forward to the University of Cincinnati extension (and similar projects) once that community decides they like their new streetcar after it opens.

  16. metrosucks says:

    I look forward to the University of Cincinnati extension (and similar projects) once that community decides they like their new streetcar after it opens.

    Translation for “community likes”: A few privileged people and time-wasting tourists like the 3mph trolley, so the local government stenographers (media) write up glowing articles on how the choo choo’s 2 passengers absolutely love the spiffy, subsidized ride they are getting. Contractors jerk off to the huge profits and cost overruns, and local government “leaders” (sic) are as happy as well, a kid with a toy train set on Christmas morning. And just like the kid, who will want a few more track sections, a new engine, maybe some boxcars, the politicians will want to expand the empire and waste more money.

  17. Frank says:

    Ha. Spot on Metrosucks.

    As for the blowhard, he thinks claiming Amazon paid for half Seattle’s streetcar was a “minor factual error.” His five-page comments here are likely litered with “minor factual errors.”

    And then he goes from “politicians have the foresight to improve transit” in one comment to “weak, vacillating politicians” in the next. We may be dealing with multiple personality disorder.

    Do you think Michael Setty will go away or will he just keep blowing hard?

  18. Frank says:

    Let’s just settle some things. Michael Setty’s original claim:

    “the South Lake Union Streetcar, which was funded 50% by Amazon as a shuttle between their new headquarters and the main transit hub in downtown Seattle.”

    Original can be found here:

    http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=8683

    Michael Setty told me to STFU unless I can tell the truth.

    That’s rich.

    #Blowhard

  19. metrosucks says:

    And then he goes from “politicians have the foresight to improve transit” in one comment to “weak, vacillating politicians” in the next.

    Well you see, they have “foresight” when they plan a nice big rail boondoggle that he might be able to “consult” on. Need more money to move out of that country home and into the density he so lusts after, don’t you know. As a side note, planners still can’t decide whether density is expensive because we don’t let them build enough of it, or because suburbia is somehow stealing all the tax dollars from the city center.

    Obviously, when politicians back down based on voter anger and back-peddle from their rail boondoggle plans, they magically become “weak and vacillating”. Because being a politician isn’t about listening to your constituents, it’s about doing the Right Thing as defined by Michael Setty!

    Do you think Michael Setty will go away or will he just keep blowing hard?

    He’s going to keep blowing till he’s blue in the face and passes out. Then he’s going to wake up and do it again. Michael Setty is the classic caricature of the person who can’t leave his computer because someone is wrong on the Internet!

  20. gilfoil says:

    Wow, not seeing much enthusiasm for the Antiplanner’s BRT plan as a way to improve transit in San Antonio. That’s disappointing. I thought you guys would be excited to discuss the ways it could speed up passengers’ trips and improve their lives. I guess you don’t think much of his plan.

  21. metrosucks says:

    Gilfoil, just go suck on a horse penis and STFU ok?

  22. gilfoil says:

    metrosucks, thank you for your interesting response! I am not clear as to how it relates to the transit needs of San Antonio residents. Could you clarify? Thanks!

  23. metrosucks says:

    It relates to your need to get a life and stop thinking you are so smart and straight.

  24. Frank says:

    In Internet slang, a troll (/?tro?l/, /?tr?l/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4]

    Clearly gillfoil is trolling with his off-topic BRT comments.

    Simply ask him to stay on topic or ignore his pathetic attempts to distract and disrupt.

  25. MJ says:

    Wow, not seeing much enthusiasm for the Antiplanner’s BRT plan as a way to improve transit in San Antonio. That’s disappointing. I thought you guys would be excited to discuss the ways it could speed up passengers’ trips and improve their lives. I guess you don’t think much of his plan.

    Non sequitur. I don’t think much of San Antonio’s plan. As I asked before, what is the problem that this project is supposed to solve? There has been no evidence presented that either a streetcar or BRT line would solve any significant transportation problem faced by the city. San Antonio is perfectly capable of providing faster bus service along this route if they think there is demand for it. But building a streetcar or BRT line just because they like the way it looks is just putting the cart ahead of the horse.

Leave a Reply