EDITOR NOTE–Antiphobe, you are probably correct and he added a zero. Even those old Crown Vic copper cars don’t cost that much to purchase as a taxi. Ironically, the pedicabs of Vietnam are being slowly phased out for many reasons.

Unfortunately, a rubber-tired street car system wouldn’t be ready to start “almost immediately”. Boarding/ticketing stations would still need to be built along the routes, as well as a storage/maintenance yard.

There are some very significant reasons why buses aren’t as popular a means of transit as street cars or trams — but it’s not for the usually stated reasons. The boarding and exiting of a bus, while simultaneously trying to pay one’s fare, takes precious time slowing down one’s commute. A rubber-tired vehicle can operate with the same efficiency of movement as a street car, but boarding stations (where you pay your fare and wait comfortably for your ride, and whose boarding level is the same height as the transit vehicle’s) have to be built — and the vehicle’s front and rear doors have to be widened (just like a street car’s). Buses have been built to these specifications and the transit systems that use them have the type of boarding stations mentioned — this technology isn’t new, and all the wrinkles have been long ironed out. Better yet, the economic reinvestment (which does occur with the construction of rail-based street cars) is nearly identical with the institution of this type of rubber-tired transit system.

Now, I’m not a gloom ‘n doom person — but a significant amount of our community has been built on the presumption that a certain kind of technology will be forever-present and affordable. The tax subsidies allowing the use of that technology have rarely been questioned — and to my knowledge few members of the general public ever ask whether the travel routes for that technology will pay for themselves. The personal cost to each American household to use that technology now verges on almost 20% of each family’s income. But there is rarely a hue & cry about the ever increasing demand on our personal income and freedom that the use of this technology demands. Yes, the automobile (as this piece of technology) has insinuated itself into every aspect of our modern lives — it dictates everything from where our school districts decide to place schools, to where we live and work.

Though I don’t believe Boise is quite ready for a street car system today, I do applaud the politicians who are looking for solutions to this burgeoning dilemma. A mass transit system that can compete with the operational characteristics offered by a private automobile today, could be a solution to tomorrow’s privations.

In the mean time, getting the backbone of such a system in-place — and operating it as a rubber-tire technology — is a nearly perfect solution. But it will take money, and a shifting of priorities and existing land resources away from the ever-pressing demands of a transportation technology that is wheedling away at our personal fortunes.

As the Guardian points out, even if a single city somehow succeeds in generating the revenue necessary to buy and operate a mass transit system — without public involvement — the owner of that right-of-way (ACHD) and the Regional Transit Authority (Valley Regional Transit) must still hold a number of public hearings on the matter BEFORE such a system would be permitted to operate. Further, if federal funds were ever used on a portion of that system, the system would have to first make its way onto the only federally-approved list of such expenditure requests — this would require the Metropolitan Planning Organization (COMPASS) to agree to its inclusion. This would also require public hearings.

In short, regardless of what anyone says, building and operating such a system is not (in any way) like a “usual, normal, regular, or established” municipal expense — its presence could never materialize out of thin air, and whatever debt-load it may generate could never be incurred without public approval.

I have spoken with two of the developers downtown who are AGAINST the streetcar. Make no mistake about it, the streetcar to them is viewed as a waste of money and will not affect their future development plans one iota. What is wanted is a better BUS system, especially to serve outlying areas.

And, I may add, the route the city and CCDC is proposing, along with 2 of the future expansions, are already for the most part DEVELOPED.

Also, the CCDC stands to benefit from any additional tax revenues generated from properties on the proposed route because it falls inside their Urban Renewal District. The taxpayers will be handing over tremendous amounts of additional tax revenue directly to them.

Mayor Bieter would serve the downtown community better by building a trolley from/to Canyon County that could move thousands of people twice a day. Think of the potential for reduced traffic on I-84, excess downtown parking, and fewer accidents.

Of course, CCDC would lose parking garage revenue…………….

There is zero evidence that their trolley was the catalyst. For all we know they might have gotten MORE than $2.5 billion in development if they had not built their trolley!

Similarly there is no evidence that developers are hesitant to build in Boise because we lack the novelty of a $60 million folly clogging the street. If anything just the opposite.

The revenue is not offsetting the cost burden and as pointed out in the study they will most likely have to start shutting off bus services to keep paying for the train.

Check the cost PER RIDER (4 to 5 times as much) compared to buses.

http://www.cascadepolicy.org/pdf/env/I_110.pdf

http://www.cascadepolicy.org/pdf/env/drain.htm

The Portland Mall LID tax was just raised 70% to continue to feed the monster:

http://bojack.org/2009/09/portland_transit_mall_tax_hit.html

If you do not think this will happen here as well, I hate to tell you this, it happens everywhere streetcars and light rail are put in.

Also, if I can just point out something – Boise isn’t Portland. The population density is far worse here. Portland is 4200 people/square mile. Boise is 2900.

And if we were governed by the Statesman comments section, we’d be arming ourselves for a march on Washington for denigrating the “White” House. The place is a cesspool.