The ONLY reason Ustick Road is an issue is because the City DID NOT act on any concern in the begining and got a huge amount of hate mail for it.

Oh – – and next year is an election year – maybe that is the bigger reason – ya think?

The Boise School district assumes that 13 students are generated for every 20 homes; seven of these students would be in elementary school, three in junior high, and three in senior high. Meridian School District assumes a slightly higher student generation rate (bigger families). The Cliffs developer seems to be taking this into account when he agreed to donate an elementary school site within the development, and pay for all busing for kids until such time as the development has enough homesites to demand an on-site school. This would be towards the full build-out of the development, when The Cliffs’ families would generate just under 500 elementary school students and just over 200-each of junior & senior high students.

I believe Avimor has been required to donate an elementary school site, and the Avimor and Dry Creek developers will be collaborating to donate a combined junior high & senior high school site. Dry Creek itself, if approved, would also have to donate at least two additional elementary school sites.

The last neighborhood school constructed in the region was the charter school at the Hidden Springs Planned Community. This school gives enrollment priority to families who live in the Dry Creek Valley (mostly Hidden Springs families – though not exclusively), the school site was donated by the HSPC developer, and the bank loan used to pay for the permanent school building was secured by the HSPC developer.

But since the real issue is traffic congestion, even poorly designed Planned Communities are already assessed a lower traffic generation rate by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (7.5 trips per day, versus 9.57 in a conventional suburban development). More well-designed PC’s record even lower traffic generation rates – because the majority of the residents’ needs are within walking distance of their homes.

If Boise leaders were really concerned about traffic congestion in existing neighborhoods, they would start to adopt land use patterns that are identical to the county’s Planned Community ordinance. In fact, since I’m sure some of the traffic driving down Ustick isn’t coming from Boise but from parts west, this more-inclusive (non-auto reliant) land use pattern should be embraced by all the towns in the Valley.

Let’s really make development pay for itself.

The average household size in Ada County is 2.54 people, yet each home generates 9.57 vehicle trips per day. So traffic (and its congestion) increases over 3 3/4 times faster than the county’s population.

This ‘average’ family has two working parents, making four vehicle trips per day to get back and forth to work. The rest of the 5 1/2 trips (nearly 60% of all traffic) comes from having to drive the kids around to school & after school activities – and having to drive to buy groceries & clothes, go to the dentist & doctor, go the library, and (if you have time) going to the bar to knock back the occasional beer (or to engage in whatever adult recreation of your choice).

You can see how the majority of traffic impacts are intertwined with the land uses surrounding a person’s home. What if your kid could walk to school & walk to soccer practice, what if the local library was next to your kid’s school, what if the pub was right around the corner from your house, or you could hop on your bike right onto a recreational trail? What if you could run your business right from your home without having to run through the bureaucratic guantlet at your local land use agency – and a high-bandwidth internet connection was brought right to your home at no extra charge?

If all these things could be accomplished, cutting traffic congestion in half could all be done without having to touch (let alone widen) a single existing road. And, what if this could be done without having to spend a single extra penny of tax money.

Yet Boise’s response to the only such developments that could accomplish this goal has been obstructionary. Boise has sued the county over Avimor (which proposes to construct all of the abovementioned community elements), and has issued a Papal Bull objecting to the planned community development at Hammer Flats (which will provide even more such community elements).

Boise’s opposition has nothing to do with being an advocate for responsible growth, or anything to do with protecting its existing neighborhoods. If it was, it would be jumping on the planned community bandwagon. Instead, Boise opposes growth patterns that would reduce traffic through existing neighborhoods – for what reason?

The only reason that I can think of has to do with giving the ‘impression’ that its willing to duke it out for the little guy – as long as it doesn’t actually cost anything. And, ‘cost’ is the key word. Boise is incredibly anxious to increase its tax income, and so far the only local government that seems to have its head screwed on right is Ada County. A planned community out in the county cuts into Boise government’s tax-avarice, and threatens to expose its tremendous indifference to the traffic plight of its citizens.

If you think more asphalt will resolve the traffic problems, then Los Angeles is the model. They’ve sure eliminated all their traffic problems with all those roads, huh?

I just came back from a wedding in Baltimore, and if the local leaders here are trying to make Boise into a city of that size, then I will be looking to buy stuff other than just tar, feathers, torches, and pitchforks, and so should you.