Full disclaimer I worked for VIA for a short time and I am a big believer in public transit. VIA’s own rider survey shows that 71.6% of passengers are employed full- or part-time, and another 8.1% are actively looking for work. Two-thirds of VIA riders report household incomes below $25,000, and 66.6% ride at least five days a week. These are not hypothetical “future demand” riders. They are workers, students, caregivers, patients, grocery shoppers, and people trying to keep their lives moving in a city that has made car ownership feel almost mandatory. 
So yes, San Antonio should absolutely scrutinize an $800 million transit investment. Big public dollars deserve public accountability. But comparing bus rapid transit to an arena misses the whole point. An arena is a discretionary entertainment investment - that based on our experience in San Antonio has never translated in significant gains for working families. Transit on the other hand is how people get to work, school, medical appointments, child care, and public life.
It also leaves out a major fiscal fact: the local investment is what allowed San Antonio to compete for and secure hundreds of millions in federal transit dollars. VIA has already locked down a $267.8 million Federal Transit Administration construction grant for the Green Line, the largest federal investment in VIA’s history. VIA’s own announcement says the voter-approved 1/8-cent sales tax provides the necessary local match and operating funds for the Green Line. 
The same is true for the Silver Line. The Bexar County/VIA funding agreement helped close the local funding gap so VIA could seek federal matching funds; VIA has said that step puts the region closer to attracting $146.7 million in federal dollars for the Silver Line. In other words, the local commitment is not simply an $800 million local spend. It is the match that has already brought in $267.8 million for the Green Line and positions San Antonio to attract another $146.7 million for the Silver Line — $414.5 million in federal transit funding total if the Silver Line award is finalized. 
That is how infrastructure funding works. Cities that put up local match draw down federal dollars. Cities that do not leave money on the table for other communities to claim.
And these are not “just two bus lines.” VIA’s Green Line is designed to run every 10 minutes on weekdays, with dedicated lanes, traffic-signal priority, new stations, sidewalks, drainage improvements, and pedestrian crossings. The $481 million Green Line is fully funded, includes 25 new stations and 17 articulated buses, and is intended to connect the airport, downtown, and the South Side. The Silver Line would add an east-west rapid corridor from the West Side through downtown to the East Side, also designed for frequent service. 
The robotaxi comparison is not the best for your argument. A driverless car service covering part of the city does not replace a public transit system. It does not move the same number of people. It does not guarantee affordability. And it definitely does not solve the daily transportation needs of workers who need to be able to rely on predictable, low-cost service. Robotaxis are a technology product. Transit is public infrastructure. I don’t think we should confuse the two.
we already decided that San Antonio should spend public money on transit - in 2020, when voters approved the Keep SA Moving funding plan by more than 68%. It makes sense to finally build a system worthy of the people who already rely on it. Because God knows we’re not keeping up with growth and there’s no place to build more roads.
Calling this an $800 million bet on “two bus lines” makes it sound like the city is buying a very expensive hobby. I see this as an investment in time, access, reliability, and dignity for people whose commutes have been treated as invisible for too long. The CEO and board chair did a recent podcast episode on Beyond the Bite - I highly recommend listening to it to learn more.
San Antonio can and should demand strong oversight, clear performance measures, and honest cost controls. But this piece comes off like contempt, which is frustrating. A city that can spend decades subsidizing roads, garages, interchanges, ballparks, arenas, convention facilities, and private development can afford to build serious transit for the people who keep the city running.
All fair points and I appreciate the substantive response—I’d sharpen a few things, though, for your edification:
Marvel is relevant as a comparison of the public discussion, not as a similar project. I am not saying that Marvel is good and buses are bad. I am saying that Marvel captivated the civic discourse for months and this has received nowhere near that level of attention despite both being high nine-figure projects. Beyond that, there ARE holistic benefits to both which I will not get into.
There is a lot of federal money, true, but you're talking about hundreds of millions of local taxpayer dollars on top of it. Federal match is just a matter of financing and not a justification for any policy. I don't want any project that attracts federal dollars to validate itself.
There is no contempt here for buses, or public transportation, or the idea that people from all backgrounds should not be limited in getting around the city. This is obviously a catalyst for growth and basically everyone loves good transportation. But we're talking about $800m at the start (let's be honest it'll get worse) for something which definitely does not solve the problem. And how much are we going to commit? For how long? You could spend billions trying to remake the city into a well-connected urban policy playground and never achieve it.
This is why the robotaxis matter. I am not saying that they are the answer--you'll note I merely mention them. I am saying, though, that technology is changing. We have tunnels with self-driven Teslas ferrying us underground in other major cities, autonomous taxis, and the rate of progress is only increasing. This is a huge bet that these two bus routes are a large part of the solution to longstanding transportation issues AND are also the right answer for a 2030s and 2040s SA that may look different than what we're planning for.
I'm not against bus lanes, I just wish we cared enough to talk about this as much as the Spurs because they're both important. And, yes, I think we're overpaying for the wrong solution. Despite all this, I fully respect your right to come to a different conclusion, and appreciate your substantive response. This is what we're after!
Well said in this comment. I think many people simply see a big, scary number when it comes to transit investments and do not see what is involved with the budget. Nearly half of the Green Line budget are for capital expenses such as drainage improvements, roadway paving, traffic signal improvements, and more. VIA, a separate entity from the city which I feel this substack tends to conflate, is required to incorporate these improvements, significantly increasing the cost of this project. Its a public works project in a transit trench coat.
I agree with Bono as well, in that nobody bats an eye at the investments made into roadway infrastructure. In fact, many believe that the taxes paid at the pump fully fund the roadways, when in reality it only makes up about 40%. The vast majority of roadways do not turn a profit, a common indicator of success used by people critical of transit investments.
The Green Line and the Silver Line are a good start, not perfect, but good. The fact of the matter is that San Antonio is a low-income city. One of most influential variables that increases upward economic mobility is viable access to transportation. San Antonio could have the best parks, schools, clinics, etc. but if the people who need it the most cannot reliably access it, then whats the point? In fact, We do have great schools, SAC is commonly a top performing community college nationally and UTSA has been steadily rising in prominence. These transit investments are the start of a San Antonio where driving may not have to be the only real option!
Another truth bomb article. Well done. Buses are certainly more cost effective than light rail, but transit ridership is declining and isn't coming back. The greatest determining factor to getting out of poverty is access to a private automobile. The majority of transit riders are the poor, and they will stay poor the longer they are relegated to taking slow buses (or rapid ones) to their job. People with cars have more access to more jobs and can work multiple jobs if they need to. Ride share and driverless cars is the future for the transit dependent, not gas guzzling empty buses.
Thanks Jeff. If you could wave a magic wand and have extensive bus transit, or even rail(!) that would be fantastic, but when the magic wand is hundreds of millions of dollars and the projects take years and years, with disruption from construction, it doesn’t pass the smell test.
You are correct. And left unmentioned is the reduction in road capacity and increased traffic congestion as dedicated bus lanes consume existing road lanes. Many small businesses will go bankrupt as their streets are torn up for possibly years to install transit lanes. It is really a lose, lose proposition especially considering what else could be done with the money that could actually be helpful to restoring our economy. That could be the subject of a future article!
Transit would never even be suggested if the Federal Government weren’t showering us with billions that they borrow from China. I do not understand why the Trump Dept. of Transportation, or the Bush or Reagan for that matter, keeps subsidizing such waste, if not fraud. I think it is the latter. When you look at light rail, there is no more expensive way to move fewer people and use more energy and create more emissions than light rail. Buses are almost as bad because most of them drive around time empty of passengers. Then why do we keep building it?
Full disclaimer I worked for VIA for a short time and I am a big believer in public transit. VIA’s own rider survey shows that 71.6% of passengers are employed full- or part-time, and another 8.1% are actively looking for work. Two-thirds of VIA riders report household incomes below $25,000, and 66.6% ride at least five days a week. These are not hypothetical “future demand” riders. They are workers, students, caregivers, patients, grocery shoppers, and people trying to keep their lives moving in a city that has made car ownership feel almost mandatory. 
So yes, San Antonio should absolutely scrutinize an $800 million transit investment. Big public dollars deserve public accountability. But comparing bus rapid transit to an arena misses the whole point. An arena is a discretionary entertainment investment - that based on our experience in San Antonio has never translated in significant gains for working families. Transit on the other hand is how people get to work, school, medical appointments, child care, and public life.
It also leaves out a major fiscal fact: the local investment is what allowed San Antonio to compete for and secure hundreds of millions in federal transit dollars. VIA has already locked down a $267.8 million Federal Transit Administration construction grant for the Green Line, the largest federal investment in VIA’s history. VIA’s own announcement says the voter-approved 1/8-cent sales tax provides the necessary local match and operating funds for the Green Line. 
The same is true for the Silver Line. The Bexar County/VIA funding agreement helped close the local funding gap so VIA could seek federal matching funds; VIA has said that step puts the region closer to attracting $146.7 million in federal dollars for the Silver Line. In other words, the local commitment is not simply an $800 million local spend. It is the match that has already brought in $267.8 million for the Green Line and positions San Antonio to attract another $146.7 million for the Silver Line — $414.5 million in federal transit funding total if the Silver Line award is finalized. 
That is how infrastructure funding works. Cities that put up local match draw down federal dollars. Cities that do not leave money on the table for other communities to claim.
And these are not “just two bus lines.” VIA’s Green Line is designed to run every 10 minutes on weekdays, with dedicated lanes, traffic-signal priority, new stations, sidewalks, drainage improvements, and pedestrian crossings. The $481 million Green Line is fully funded, includes 25 new stations and 17 articulated buses, and is intended to connect the airport, downtown, and the South Side. The Silver Line would add an east-west rapid corridor from the West Side through downtown to the East Side, also designed for frequent service. 
The robotaxi comparison is not the best for your argument. A driverless car service covering part of the city does not replace a public transit system. It does not move the same number of people. It does not guarantee affordability. And it definitely does not solve the daily transportation needs of workers who need to be able to rely on predictable, low-cost service. Robotaxis are a technology product. Transit is public infrastructure. I don’t think we should confuse the two.
we already decided that San Antonio should spend public money on transit - in 2020, when voters approved the Keep SA Moving funding plan by more than 68%. It makes sense to finally build a system worthy of the people who already rely on it. Because God knows we’re not keeping up with growth and there’s no place to build more roads.
Calling this an $800 million bet on “two bus lines” makes it sound like the city is buying a very expensive hobby. I see this as an investment in time, access, reliability, and dignity for people whose commutes have been treated as invisible for too long. The CEO and board chair did a recent podcast episode on Beyond the Bite - I highly recommend listening to it to learn more.
San Antonio can and should demand strong oversight, clear performance measures, and honest cost controls. But this piece comes off like contempt, which is frustrating. A city that can spend decades subsidizing roads, garages, interchanges, ballparks, arenas, convention facilities, and private development can afford to build serious transit for the people who keep the city running.
All fair points and I appreciate the substantive response—I’d sharpen a few things, though, for your edification:
Marvel is relevant as a comparison of the public discussion, not as a similar project. I am not saying that Marvel is good and buses are bad. I am saying that Marvel captivated the civic discourse for months and this has received nowhere near that level of attention despite both being high nine-figure projects. Beyond that, there ARE holistic benefits to both which I will not get into.
There is a lot of federal money, true, but you're talking about hundreds of millions of local taxpayer dollars on top of it. Federal match is just a matter of financing and not a justification for any policy. I don't want any project that attracts federal dollars to validate itself.
There is no contempt here for buses, or public transportation, or the idea that people from all backgrounds should not be limited in getting around the city. This is obviously a catalyst for growth and basically everyone loves good transportation. But we're talking about $800m at the start (let's be honest it'll get worse) for something which definitely does not solve the problem. And how much are we going to commit? For how long? You could spend billions trying to remake the city into a well-connected urban policy playground and never achieve it.
This is why the robotaxis matter. I am not saying that they are the answer--you'll note I merely mention them. I am saying, though, that technology is changing. We have tunnels with self-driven Teslas ferrying us underground in other major cities, autonomous taxis, and the rate of progress is only increasing. This is a huge bet that these two bus routes are a large part of the solution to longstanding transportation issues AND are also the right answer for a 2030s and 2040s SA that may look different than what we're planning for.
I'm not against bus lanes, I just wish we cared enough to talk about this as much as the Spurs because they're both important. And, yes, I think we're overpaying for the wrong solution. Despite all this, I fully respect your right to come to a different conclusion, and appreciate your substantive response. This is what we're after!
Well said in this comment. I think many people simply see a big, scary number when it comes to transit investments and do not see what is involved with the budget. Nearly half of the Green Line budget are for capital expenses such as drainage improvements, roadway paving, traffic signal improvements, and more. VIA, a separate entity from the city which I feel this substack tends to conflate, is required to incorporate these improvements, significantly increasing the cost of this project. Its a public works project in a transit trench coat.
I agree with Bono as well, in that nobody bats an eye at the investments made into roadway infrastructure. In fact, many believe that the taxes paid at the pump fully fund the roadways, when in reality it only makes up about 40%. The vast majority of roadways do not turn a profit, a common indicator of success used by people critical of transit investments.
The Green Line and the Silver Line are a good start, not perfect, but good. The fact of the matter is that San Antonio is a low-income city. One of most influential variables that increases upward economic mobility is viable access to transportation. San Antonio could have the best parks, schools, clinics, etc. but if the people who need it the most cannot reliably access it, then whats the point? In fact, We do have great schools, SAC is commonly a top performing community college nationally and UTSA has been steadily rising in prominence. These transit investments are the start of a San Antonio where driving may not have to be the only real option!
Seems to me that more and better park and ride lots should be a part of the city’s mass transit plan.
Another truth bomb article. Well done. Buses are certainly more cost effective than light rail, but transit ridership is declining and isn't coming back. The greatest determining factor to getting out of poverty is access to a private automobile. The majority of transit riders are the poor, and they will stay poor the longer they are relegated to taking slow buses (or rapid ones) to their job. People with cars have more access to more jobs and can work multiple jobs if they need to. Ride share and driverless cars is the future for the transit dependent, not gas guzzling empty buses.
Thanks Jeff. If you could wave a magic wand and have extensive bus transit, or even rail(!) that would be fantastic, but when the magic wand is hundreds of millions of dollars and the projects take years and years, with disruption from construction, it doesn’t pass the smell test.
You are correct. And left unmentioned is the reduction in road capacity and increased traffic congestion as dedicated bus lanes consume existing road lanes. Many small businesses will go bankrupt as their streets are torn up for possibly years to install transit lanes. It is really a lose, lose proposition especially considering what else could be done with the money that could actually be helpful to restoring our economy. That could be the subject of a future article!
Transit would never even be suggested if the Federal Government weren’t showering us with billions that they borrow from China. I do not understand why the Trump Dept. of Transportation, or the Bush or Reagan for that matter, keeps subsidizing such waste, if not fraud. I think it is the latter. When you look at light rail, there is no more expensive way to move fewer people and use more energy and create more emissions than light rail. Buses are almost as bad because most of them drive around time empty of passengers. Then why do we keep building it?