Transit plan path toward a better city
Pop quiz!
What issue has the to improve air quality, link disparate neighborhoods and employment centers, alleviate poverty in the poorest big city in America, address vehicle congestion and help the region brace for growth?
The correct answer is transit. Improving public transit in San Antonio has the potential to impact each of these issues, and that’s reason enough to support Mayor Ron Nirenberg’s ongoing effort to better fund VIA Metropolitan Transit and preserve Edwards Aquifer protection.
This need not be an either/or decision, although it has at times been framed as such. As the mayor has demonstrated, San Antonio Water System can assume control of the popular Edwards Aquifer Protection Program. Doing so would free up sales tax dollars to better fund VIA, which receives much of its funding from a half-cent sales tax; other major cities dedicate a full penny to transit.
The immediate response from a number of council members? Complaints about a lack of communication from the mayor. To which we say, get over it. This is an opportunity to preserve a popular conservation program and dramatically improve bus service in a city that regularly ranks as one of the most economically segregated in the country. A city where the poverty rate was 20 percent in 2018, according to the American Community Survey. If there is a chance to improve transit here continue with aquifer protection, civic and policy leaders should be thinking constructively about how to make that happen.
Here’s why we like the idea in broad strokes: San Antonio Water System is a natural entity to continue the Edwards Aquifer Protection Program. The Edwards Aquifer is our primary source of drinking water, which means SAWS has a vested interest in protecting it.
City sales tax dollars have funded the Edwards Aquifer Protection Program, but the benefit is regional and SAWS’ reach extends beyond the city’s limits.
It can possibly be done a rate increase. This is a bit technical, but stick with us. Aquifer protection is supported through a portion of a
sales tax, which translates to about $20 million a year for the aquifer. If voters approved shifting these sales tax dollars to VIA, then the city would no longer provide the transit authority with $10 million from its general fund. These funds instead could go to SAWS for aquifer protection. Another possibility? SAWS recently increased its annual contribution to the city by about $11 million. If aquifer protection is a priority, the city could return those funds to SAWS. Or SAWS could bond for aquifer protection, spreading out the cost to future ratepayers (and future growth, which threatens the aquifer). In other words, it’s possible to do this. The sales tax also funds the popular greenway system, but this could be folded into forthcoming bond programs.
On the transit side, there is the potential to improve bus service on key routes, but also create meaningful rapid transit. Yes, it would be bus rapid transit in a dedicated lane and not light rail (but the community cannot afford light rail). Yes, Nirenberg and VIA need to do a much better job of explaining what voters in November would get for their buck in terms of specific routes and timing.
But in better funding transit we see great opportunity to bring much-needed equity to our city. In 2012, San Antonio ranked No. 1 in economic segregation in a Pew Research Center report, “The Rise of Residential Segregation by Income.” In 2015, we saw a similar ranking from the Martin Prosperity Institute, which pegged San Antonio as one of the most economically segregated big cities in the country. And, of course, there were those 2018 poverty numbers.
If the goal is to improve transit and preserve aquifer protection, this appears to be a viable and meaningful path forward.